Believing in lies is what keeps us all in slavery. Trouble is, most don't even know they are being lied to. My wont is to bust those lies wide-open for any who care about these things. Some do... some don't. Some are just happy living in never-never land!

January 11, 2006

Above Top Secret Forum Dis-Info that started it all

Since 'lies' is what I speak about here, there is not much of more importance than the 'BIG LIE' that started us all on a downward spiral. I'm speaking of the events of 911 - specifically about the 'Official Version' of events that any normally reasonable and intelligent person who actually is 'thinking' will see is a load of horse manure!

There are MANY who are CLAIMING they are looking for the 'truth', but when their actions are examined, and here must be made a distinction between what they say and what they are doing, it is apparent they are mostly making 'noises' about looking for the truth.

Following is the article by Joe Quinn that got ATS in such a big huff.

It is pretty plain that they did not glow with 'happiness' by being 'outed' in this way!

Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon on9/11

and Neither Did a Boeing 757

by Joe Quinn

Afterthe release of the QFG Pentagon Strike Flash Animation on August23rd, 2004, a veritable onslaught of new articles were published thatsought to dismiss the "no plane at the Pentagon" theory. One such article, that is frequently referenced by certain'9/11 researchers' was authored by a member of the forum at the "AboveTop Secret" (ATS) website. Interestingly, the article was written justa few weeks after the release of the Pentagon Strike Flashanimation, which by then, was winging its way around the world and intothe inboxes of millions of ordinary citizens. Perhaps you were one ofthem...

Theclaim that promoters of the "no plane at the Pentagon" theory weredoing immense damage to the truth/accountability movement was raised inMike Ruppert's book Crossing the Rubicon. In a stunning pieceof warped logic, Ruppert claimed that, while he is quite convinced thatit was not Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, he chose not to talk aboutor deal with the subject as part of his overall case for conspiracybecause of the "implications". According to Ruppert, the "implications"are that anyone that suggests that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon,is then forced to answer the question as to what actually happened toFlight 77. If that's the case, then we better just wrap up the whole9/11 Truth Movement and go home and have a beer.

Ruppertbalks at the idea of offering an answer to this question to his readersbecause, he claims, most people would be unable to accept it, and, hesuggests, 9/11 researchers serve only to alienate the public supportthat they wish to attract by stretching the boundaries of thecollective belief system. What Ruppert doesn't explain is why anymember of the public would happily accept that U.S. governmentofficials participated in the slaughter of the passengers on Flights 11and 175 and the occupants of the WTC towers (as he details in his book)yet would be unable to accept the idea that the samegovernment officials played a part in disposing of the passengers ofFlight 77 in a much less imaginative way. Let's be honest here, in thecontext of 9/11 being the work of a faction of the US government andmilitary, the answer to the question as to what happened to Flight 77if it didn't hit the Pentagon is quite obvious - Flight 77 and itsoccupants were flown to a specific destination and â€œdisposed ofâ€ by theconspirators. That's pretty simple; cut and dried; no need for muchstretching there! But, for some reason, Ruppert (and others affected bythis paramoralism) seems to think that killing thousands of citizens bycrashing airplanes is easier to accept than cold bloodedly murderingthem "in person," as it were.

SinceRuppert's declaration about the "no plane at the Pentagon" theory, manyother "9/11 researchers", such as Mark Rabinowitz and Jim Hoffman, have seized upon Ruppert's idea andeven expanded upon it by suggesting that the "no planers" are actuallygovernment agents trying to discredit the REAL 9/11 researchers withthe 'kooky' "no plane" theory.

In orderto really understand the insidiousness of this patronising claim thatthe public could not accept the implications of the idea that a Boeing757 did not hit the Pentagon, let's look at the "evidence" as presentedby the ATS member that it really was Flight 77 that impacted thePentagon that bright September morn.

First,however, I would like to make a few observations about 9/11 research ingeneral.

Anyonewho takes on the formidable task of digging into the events of 9/11 isimmediately at a disadvantage because the US government has alreadydeclared the case closed. The government knows how it happened and whodid it and have informed the entire world. As a result, there is nopossibility of access to the raw data, to the crime scene or analysesof same. Here is where we meet the major obstacle: since the USgovernment is the prime suspect, we cannot simply take as trutheverything - or anything - that they say in relation to the case.

Investigationof the 9/11 attacks should be approached like any murder investigation.When confronted with a murder case (like 9/11) and a suspect that has ahistory of deceit and murder (like the US government and its agencies)and who had an opportunity and a motive to commit the murder, do youtake as fact any claims by the suspect that he did not commit themurder? Do you seek to fit the facts around his claim that he did notcommit the murder? When you confront evidence that suggests that thesuspect is lying about his account of where he was and what he wasdoing, or you find inconsistencies and logistically impossiblescenarios in his account, do you ignore these and focus only on thefact that he said he did not commit the murder and try to find andpresent evidence that backs up his claim to innocence?

The factis that researchers coming to the 9/11 investigation after the fact,and after the case has been officially closed, are not only confrontedwith the task of trying to find out what actually happened - they alsoface the already well established public belief, by which theythemselves are also influenced, that the official story is the truth.The best approach for any 9/11 researcher with honest intentions is to,if possible, wipe from their minds the official version of events andtake the attitude of someone who has just returned from a 5 year tripto the outer reaches of the solar system, during which time they had nocommunication with planet earth. Start with a beginner's mind, turn offthe sound of all the conflicting voices and their claims, and just LOOKat the evidence without prejudice.

Now, ifthe person with a truly open mind is given all of the publiclyavailable evidence and has been additionally furnished with knowledgeof the effects of airplane crashes and that of missile impacts, whatwould such a person conclude about the most likely cause of thePentagon damage? Of course, not all of the evidence was made availableto the public, but there is still sufficient visual evidence from"ground zero" (both in terms of place and TIME), to form a pretty good"best guess". For a definitive conclusion to be reached, the "private"evidence, like the video tapes of the event that the FBI confiscated,would have to be released, and we don't expect that to happen any timesoon. Of course, the fact that the definitive evidence of the videoshas not been released is in itself a key piece of evidencethat suggests that the official story of what hit the Pentagon is notthe real story.

Thepurpose of this small introduction is to prepare the reader for thefact that, in his attempted rebuttal of the no 757 at the Pentagontheory, the ATS article author, CatHerder, appears to have succumbed tothe influence of the mainstream media shills that have incessantlyparroted the official government story about what happened on 9/11 forthe three years prior to the writing of the article. As such, he hasfailed to don the mantle of objective observer of the availableevidence that is so crucial to finding the truth, and instead exerts alot of effort to make the available evidence fit the government claimthat Flight 77 hit the Pentagon on the morning of September 11th 2001.Either that, or he/she is part of the "official government cover-up."After you read everything below, you can make a call on that oneyourself.

Here isthe ATS article as it appears on the ATS site with my commentsinterspersed in blue text.

EvidenceThat A Boeing 757 Really Did Impact thePentagon on 9/11

by"CatHerder", Member,AboveTopSecret.com/forum

September11th, 2004

Did a 757 hit the Pentagon on9-11

First let's start with the factualinformation available on hand.

The 757-200

As we can see from the freely availableinformation for the Boeing 757 (from the Boeing website). The 757 is amidsized commercial airliner designed for short haul and medium haulroutes (Medium Range Transport (MR-TR)), although since its release,and the subsequent discovery of the Wake Vortex it leaves behind theFAA has classified the 757 as a "Heavy" aircraft; the FAA places the757 in the Geometric Design Classification IV, and an ATC OperationClass C. (source)

The 757-200 dimensions:

Tail Height: 44 ft 6 in (13.6m)

Length: 155 ft 3 in (47.32m)

Wingspan: 124 ft 10 in (38.05m)

Body Exterior Width: 12 ft 4 in (3.7m)

Fuel Capacity: 11,489 us gal (43,490l / 43,490kg)

Maximum Takeoff weight: 255,000lb (115,680kg)

Typical Cruise Speed: 0.80 Mach (573.6mph / 956kmh)

Engines used on a 757: Two 166.4kN (37,400lb) Rolls-RoyceRB211-535C turbofans, or 178.8kN (40,200lb) RB211-535E4s, or 193.5kN(43,500lb) RB211-535E4-Bs, or 162.8kN (36,600lb) Pratt & WhitneyPW2037s, or two 178.4kN (40,100lb) PW2040s, or 189.5kN (42,600lb)PW2043s. (source1) (source2)

Auxiliary Power Unit: Honeywell GTCP331-200

left portion: source1right portion: source2 (height and width notation to graphicadded by me)

Next, let's look at the Pentagon.

The Pentagon

The Pentagon was designed in the early 40's and was completed in only16 months on Jan 14, 1943. The shortages of materials required for warproduction raised many design and construction problems. The use ofreinforced concrete in lieu of formed steel for the building madepossible a saving of 43,000 tons of steel, more than enough to build abattleship. The use of concrete ramps rather than elevators furtherreduced steel requirements. Drainage pipes were concrete; ducts werefiber, interior doors were wood. An unusual wall design - concretespandrels carried to window sill level - eliminated many miles ofthrough-wall copper flashing.(Source1)(Source2)

Recent renovations and upgrades to the building were nearing completion on the side hit on 9-11 andperformed reasonably well considering they were not designed towithstand aircraft impact. On September 11, when an American AirlinesBoeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon, home of the U.S. Department ofDefense (DoD),about 20,000 people were at work in this, the largest office buildingin the world. Yet according to the DoD casualty update on October 1, only 125Pentagon employees were killed along with the 64 from the fatedairliner. (source - Architecture Week)

The exterior walls had been reinforcedwith steel beams and columns, bolted where they met at each floor. Someof these reinforced walls very near the point of impact remained inplace for a half hour before collapsing, allowing uncounted hundreds toescape. "Had we not undertaken this effort," said Eveyat a press briefing on September 15, "this could havebeen much, much worse."

Now, I'm sure everyone can agree that the above information is a matterof public record, and none of it is incorrect, altered, or misquoted inany way to support either side of the case. It is all merely factualinformation that we will refer to in the following sections.

[Note: I was unintentionally misleading in a previous postwhen I said the Pentagon didn't use a steel beam construction - whilethat is still true for the original design, it was reinforcedin various areas during the upgrades to include steel beams and columnsin some areas of the renovations.]

In addition to major overhauls of the mechanical and electricalsystems, the Wedge One renovation included the fire sprinklers,automatic fire doors, and the steel which saved many lives on the dayof the attack.

The blast-resistant windows were nearly two inches (5 centimeters)thick. Some of them remain remarkably intact and in place adjacent thepoint of impact. Some were popped out of their frames by the force ofthe exploding jet fuel, but they fell without breaking or splintering.

Also on the exterior walls, between the steel columns, the renovationcrew had placed Kevlar cloth, similar to the material used forbullet-proof vests. This had the effect of holding together buildingmaterials so they wouldn't become deadly projectiles in an explosion.

Looking At the Big Picture

From facts contained above, we can all agree that:

Â·The length of the outside wall on any side of the pentagon is921 feet.

Â·The wingspan of a 757 is 124 feet 10 inches.

Â·Now, everyone can agree that 921/125= roughly 7.4 right?

Given the size of the 757, and the size of the Pentagon, the damagedarea fits in perfectly with the dimensionsof both the aircraft and the building.

The above "opening gambit" is very telling since it delivershard facts, one after the other, all of which are accurate. It is inthis last statement that the twisting begins. The fact that the lengthof the Pentagon is equivalent to 7.4 757's wing to wing, or that thewidth of one 757 equals 13.5% of the facade of the Pentagon has nobearing on the actual damage done. Indeed, given the weight and speedof the 757 that is alleged to have impacted the building, the actualdamage done to the Pentagon is entirely inconsistent with an aircraftof the size, weight, and speed of a 757. In other words, the argumentactually supports the "no-Boeing" theory better than it supports"Flight 77 hit the Pentagon."

Look at the hole in the building

Here is the hole in the building - it's been reported by at least adozen different sources (including conspiracy theory sites) to be a 16to 20 foot hole. That is really interesting when you take into accountthe fact that the 757 body is 12 ft 4in wide and 13 ft 6inhigh. (Here is where I was mistaken in the past, like so very manyothers I was led astray by the HEIGHT of the aircraft, which isactually the measurement from the wheels-down to the tip of thetail. That measurement is for aircraft hangar clearance, not theSIZE of the aircraft.) The 757 is basically a cylinder that is 13 feetacross. It then should not be surprising that it would create somethingaround a thirteen foot hole in the side of the building.

Here is the next twist. The Boeing 757 is not simply a 13ftwide cylinder; if it were, then the damage to the Pentagon might bemore plausible. The reality, however, is that a Boeing 757 is a 13ftwide, 155 ft long cylinder with a tail fin that extends 45 ft into theair. Add to that the fact that there are two 6 ton steel enginesslung under each wing about 6 feet to each side of the cylinder body.The wings extend out on each side for 50ft + making for a totalaircraft width of 125 feet, a total length of 155 ft and a maximumheight of 45 ft. It comes as no surprise then that this largecommercial aircraft weighs in at over 90 tons fully loaded.Ontake off from Washington Dulles airport, Flight 77 weighedapproximately 82 tons.

The above nonsensical argument would have you believe thatthe only thing to consider is a "13 ft wide cylinder" that justmagically lost everything else, or that everything else just "foldedup" and flew inside the building plastered to the side of that 13 ftcylinder. Even if the wings could do that, we are still left with thetwo 6 ton engines that were NOT dropped off on the lawn, and which,together, are as wide as the cylinder body!

Look at the nose-on view of a 757 - you can see the bodyis slightly less than 1/3 the size of the height of the aircraft. Thetail certainly isn't going to punch a hole through a reinforcedconcrete wall; that is why there is no 40 foot hole in the front of thePentagon in any photos. A 40 foot object didn't hit it, a 13 footobject did.

Again, this is not JUST a "13ft object" by any stretch of theimagination. By now it should be obvious that the author is attemptingto subtly manipulate the reader by reducing a large, 82 ton passengeraircraft to "a 13ft object".

Think about this.

Is "a 13ft object" a reasonable description of a Boeing 757?Is it reasonable for the author to reduce a large plane that can carryup to 200 adult human beings to "a 13ft object"? We could take thisunreasonable definition one step further and flesh out the image thatour author is trying to plant in our heads and say that, according toour author, the Boeing 757 that he/she alleges hit the Pentagon, wascomparable to a large SUV, or a similar "13ft object".

While it is reasonable to state that the tail of a 757 maynot necessarily have punched a hole through the facade of the Pentagon,can we expect to at least see some evidence of the tailhaving hit the facade? More than that, we must consider the forwardmomentum of those two, inescapable, 6 TON steel engines that wereneither dropped on the lawn, nor were they smashed like pancakesagainst the side of the "13 ft cylinder." If I struck the facade of thePentagon with a sledge hammer, is it reasonable that I would be able tocause some observable damage? The outer 6 inches of the facade of thePentagon is made of soft limestone, yet our author sees no problem withclaiming that such a soft surface, when struck by a piece of aircraftweighing SIX TONS and traveling at hundreds of miles per hour, would inno way leave any significant and observable damage.

While the "cylinder body" that our author keeps referring tois indeed 13ft 6in high, he omits the fact that the engines extend 5feet below the body and over six feet to either side, meaningthat, if the aircraft were actually able to successfully fly at just 1inch above the ground (highly unlikely), the height of the "cylinderbody" above the ground would be at least 18 ft 6 inches! Let usrepeat that: if a Boeing 757 were actually able to fly at just 1inch above the ground, the height of the "13 ft cylinderbody" would be at least 18 feet 6 inches! Now, add to that the factthat the plane also includes those two bothersome 6 TON engines, AND atail fin that protrudes 25 feet above the top of the cylinder bodymaking for a total aircraft height of just less than 40 feet withwheels up. Obviously then, we can reasonably expect that the damageto the facade of the Pentagon would have extended up to this height IFit was a 757 that hit the building.

However, according to the official Pentagon report:

"The heightof the damage to the facade of the building was much less than theheight of the aircraftâ€™s tail. At approximately 45 ft, the tail heightwas nearly as tall as the first four floors of the building. Obviousvisible damage extended only over the lowest two floors, toapproximately 25 ft above grade."

The top of thehole in the middle of the white box is at the same level as the top ofthe windows of the second floor, or about 23-25 feet from ground. Thethree windows above this are the windows of the third floor. The foamcovered window to the top right is the fourth floor. As noted by thePentagon report, this area (above the center hole) is where thetail should have struck, but there is no evidence of anydamage that we would expect from such an impact. What's more, the tailfin was definitely not dropped on the lawn along with the two 6 TONengines.

Conclusion? Thetail fin of a Boeing 757 did not strike this area.

What does thatsuggest? That a Boeing 757 was not involved in the attack.

Is that logicalenough?

However, fromthe point of view of the author on the ATS forum and the U.S.government, we are not allowed to use such logic. Instead, we must givein to emotional blackmail and then engage in implausible mentalgymnastics to try to explain how a 757 really could have beeninvolved in the Pentagon attack; and all because the US governmentsays so - a government that has made lies the core aspect of itsdomestic and foreign policy from day one.

In terms of thedamage that should have been caused by the other parts of a 757 (youknow, the large aircraft that our author has reduced to a mere 12ft 4in wide cylinder), the official Pentagon Building Performance Report stated that:

"The projected width[of damage to the facade] was approximately 90 ft, which issubstantially less than the 125 ft wingspan of the aircraft"

Indeed, but there is no explanation of why there is nodamage to the facade where the wings should logically have struck.Could it be that an aircraft with the wingspan of a 757 was notinvolved?

Conspiracy theory?

No, just the most obvious and logicalexplanation.

The Pentagon report also made note of the fact that:

"With the possible exception of the immediate vicinity of thefuselageâ€™s entry point at column line 14, essentially all interiorimpact damage was inflicted in the first story: The aircraft seems forthe most part to have slipped between the first-floor slab on gradeand the second floor."

That is impossible as the following graphic will show. Notethe pink line, where the "13 ft cylinder" is supposed to have slipped"under."

Another 9/11 researcher, who is naturallyskeptical about the claim that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, produced theabove graphic and posed some obvious and logical questions about thefeasibility of the official story quoted above. Given the height of justthe fuselage (leaving out the 25 feet of tail fin), how is itpossible that the immediate damage and the debris of the plane were"largely confined to the first floor"? And remember, we are talkinghere about a scenario where the plane is flying at just one inchabove the ground!

What is more, evidencefrom photos of the site show cable spools that were clearly untouchedby any incoming aircraft, suggesting that the aircraft would have tohave been flying above the maximum height of the spools (some6 feet) when it hit the Pentagon. In this case, the damage should havebeen almost entirely to the second floor!

Of course, this is notthe case, which leaves us with the logical deduction that it is highlyimprobable that a 757 was involved in the attack on the Pentagon, andthat a much smaller and more nimble aircraft was used.

Among those 9/11 researchers that claim that a 757 hit thePentagon, much is made of the fact that the Pentagon facade was builtwith "steel reinforced concrete walls". This fact is used to explainthe extremely limited immediate damage to the Pentagon facade. But howmuch credit are we going to give to brick and concrete that has beenreinforced with relatively thin steel bars? Is such a wallindestructible? If the tail fin and wings of a Boeing 757 traveling at400mph+ hit such a wall, could we at least expect them to leave a dent?A little scrape even?

Not at the Pentagon apparently.

Consider the picture below showing the impact hole at the WTCNorth Tower:

The facade of the WTC Towers were made of prefabricated steelyet as we can see from the imprint of the plane, these steel latticeswere in no way strong enough to stop the massive kinetic energy of theentire aircraft impacting the building, including the wingsand tail fin and leaving a roughly 757-shaped hole in the facade.

To provide a scale reference, a survivor of the initialimpact has been circled in the above photo (click the picture for aclose up).

Given that I am no structural engineer, however, I cannotmake any claims as to the comparative strength of the steel reinforcedbrick and concrete walls of the Pentagon versus the steel facade of theWTC towers and will allow for the idea that the wall of the Pentagon wasstronger than that of the WTC. We can even theorize that it is due tothis comparative strength difference that there is not a similar757-shaped gaping hole at the Pentagon. However, as noted, the facadeof the Pentagon was made of soft limestone 6 inches thick. Can anyoneexplain why a similar shape as that in the picture above does notappear in the soft limestone facade of the Pentagon?

In fact, there appear to be no pictures ofthe Pentagon facade immediately after the attack that show a clearpicture of the exact extent of the damage. That's because all presspersonnel were restricted. We only have photos because a civilianmanaged to take them in spite of the "cordon sanitaire." What IS clearis that, as the Pentagon report noted, the Pentagon facade bears NOevidence of damage from parts of a 757 at ALL. One notable explanationfor this mysterious lack of damage offered by official government storyenthusiasts is that by some mysterious force of nature, the wings andtail must have sheared off before impact. Of course, in sucha case, we would expect to see at least some recognisable debris of thewings and tail section outside the building. Yet, as anyone who hascarefully inspected the evidence at the scene can attest, there is nosuch debris.

According to officialstory enthusiasts, the complete lack of any debris from the wings thatwe are told somehow sheared off, is not a problem: they simplydisintegrated on impact and were rendered little more than confettithat blew away in the breeze (I kid you not; this was actuallysuggested by several "researchers"). But inthis unlikely case, how do we explain that the 125 feet long wings of a757 disintegrated, yet a fairly slender tree standing just a few feetfrom the front of the Pentagon - and in the direct path of the alleged757 - was still standing, albeit severely charred? (Charred treebranches visible in center of image) What's more, this explanationcompletely omits mention of the two six TON engines attached to saidwings.

Can we now at least accept as a possibility theidea that a 757 was not involved in the attack on thePentagon?

Why is it so difficult for our author to accept this? Theanswer would seem to be that since the official government story doesnot allow for such a scenario, like all good and obedient citizens, ourauthor feels compelled to believe what the government says, regardlessof the massive historical evidence showing that, on several occasionsin the past, the U.S. government has allowed, facilitated, or actuallycarried out, attacks on its own citizens and interests in order toachieve some specific goal, usually associated with waging war on othernations - wars like the 2003 invasion of Iraq that was a direct resultof the 9/11 attacks, including the attack on the Pentagon. Either theATS author is such a "good and obedient" citizen, or we must concludethat said author is an agent of said government.

If we peruse other postings made by the ATS author on thesubject of 9/11 in general, it seems that he/she accepts the idea thatthere was some level of complicity in the 9/11 attacks on the part ofthe US government. Yet he/she appears to have no problem with using theclaims of the same U.S. government to back up his argument that Flight77 hit the Pentagon.

For the record, I have nothing against the US government perse, and have no desire to accuse the Bush administration or anyone elseunjustly. But in the case of the 911 attacks, there is significant andcompelling evidence to suggest that something is not right with theofficial version of events and that members of the US government arelying about the true nature of those events. In this case, there is acase to answer, and my sole aim is to get at the truth, whatever thattruth may turn out to be. In pursuing this objective, I will look atthe facts and the facts alone and draw conclusions based on what thosefacts suggest, alone.

At this point, we are approaching the paradox that is at theheart of the argument of the "no 757 " debunkers. They clearly are wellaware that there is a serious problem with the lack of damage anddebris at the Pentagon, yet that does not deter them from continuingwith their increasingly unbelievable theories in an attempt to provethat the official government story is correct. At the same time, aftercoming up with bizarre explanations for the lack of damage and debris,they are then forced to deal with the fact that, while the damage tothe Pentagon facade is not consistent with the impact of a largecommercial airliner, the damage to the interior of the Pentagon is evenless so.

Now, let's return to the ATS forum post.

Also, as I showed earlier: Here is an L1011 (it's a larger plane than a757 - but the basic design of how a plane body is built is the same)being scrapped, you can see that almost ALL of the support structure isin the bottom 2/5 of the plane. This is the part that punched the holein the Pentagon, the rest of the thin, hollow, top of the plane justshredded into chunks, some of which are layingon the lawn and around the rescue vehicles. Most of a commercialairliner is just a thin aluminum shell, insulation, a thin plasticinner liner, some carpet and seats. They're designed to be as light aspossible so they can carry more cargo and more people while using lessfuel and at the same time remain "safe".

It is a given that the majority of mass is going to be in the bottomhalf of the aircraft - the primary structure and heaviest parts are alllocated there, as is the luggage and any freight.

But lets reinforce this as fact with aphoto of a 757-300 being built. (Remember, the only differencebetween a 757-200 and a 757-300 is the length of the body, and thewings on the 757-300 are reinforced and slightly deeper - the heightand width and wingspan remain identical.)

Indeed, aircraft like the 757 are made of aluminium, for themost part, yet that does not take away from the fact that the 757 thatis alleged to have hit the Pentagon was over 80 tons and flying at over400mph, with two six TON steel engines flanking.

(source) We should alsomake a note of the yellow primer used on the interior of therear section.

This image shows the light green primer used on the primarystructure components in the 757 (Boeing uses the same yellow primer andthe same green primer on almost every single part of every single 757and 767 built).

What does the green or yellow primer have to do withanything? Well, we'll take a look at the aircraft parts from thePentagon wreckage photos below.

Are we to assume that Boeing is the only aircraftmanufacturer to use green primer on the shells of its aircraft? Is itpossible that this primer is an aircraft industry standard and thatother aircraft manufactures also use green primer? If so, can the factthat some small pieces of debris that were found inside the Pentagon bereasonably touted as evidence that it had to be a Boeing 757that impacted the building?

Here, I direct your attention to the fact that Epoxy Primer37035A is just exactly that shade of yucky yellow/green. It isavailable from Aerospace Coatings Akzo Nobel and is designatedas "Epoxy Primer 37035A (green)" or "Epoxy Primer 37052 (green)". It isapparently widely used on many types of aircraft.

Again, we should note that the entire argument of the ATSauthor seems to be based on the premise that the official US governmentstory about what hit the Pentagon MUST BE correct, despite the factthat he/she ALSO accepts the idea that there was some level ofcomplicity in the 9/11 attacks on the part of the US government. Again,that is similar to taking the word of a suspected murderer about thevery murder he is suspected of having committed. It's just not logical.Could it be that the posts on the ATS forum where "CatHerder" claims tobelieve that the government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks areexamples of what is known in psychology as "malignantpseudo-identification"?

Malignantpseudo-identification is the process by which a COINTELPRO agentconsciously imitates or simulates certain behaviors or beliefs in orderto foster the sincere activist's "identification" with him/her, thusincreasing the activist's vulnerability to exploitation.

Activists and those who have altruistic self-concepts aremost vulnerable to malignant pseudo-identification especially duringwork with the agent when the interaction includes matter relating totheir competency, autonomy, or knowledge. The goal of the agent is toincrease the activist's general empathy for the agent and ideas theagent wishes to "plant" through pseudo-identification with theactivist's self-concepts. The most common example of this is the agentwho will compliment the activist for his competency or knowledge orvalue to the movement. Another is to declare identification with manyof the ideas of the activist, and then diverge on the one idea thatthey have been sent in to debunk. And certainly we can see that theissue of whether or not Flight 77 struck the Pentagon is just such anidea that would necessitate major debunking.

Ok, but how did a hollow tube, made of mostly aluminium, manage topunch through the Pentagon? I'm happy to try to help explain itwith the aid of the good folks at Perdue University . We'll get tothat in a moment.

This is a very good question. So which is it? You can makethe argument that a 757 was so flimsy that the Pentagon facade wasrelatively undamaged by the impact, or you argue that the weight andspeed of the aircraft was such that it penetrated 3 rings ofthe building, but you can't have it both ways! Any theory that attemptsto reconcile these irreconcilable claims is untenable. But that doesnot seem to bother our fearless debunker. He/she has already made twoassertions (13 ft cylinder and paint color) that in no way whatsoever"prove" any case at all, and now, with the help of the "good folks atPerdue University", our agent - uh, excuse me, author - comes up with aseriously far out theory to explain how a 757 could have caused thedamage to the interior of the Pentagon in spite of the fact that mostof it "just shredded into chunks" and was scattered all over the lawn.

Examining GroundDebris

Landing Gear Evidence

Rim photographed in the Pentagon wreckage. You can clearly see it is adouble bead design as required by the NTSB, and you can also see it hashad 90% of the rim edge smashed off in the crash.

Some people have tried to claim that the rims are different from a 757rim - well here (bottom) is a 757-200 rim from an American Airlines757, I've outlined the exact same symmetrical holes. I think perhapssome people are thrown off by the balancing led weights attached on therims in the bottom photo? Have you never taken your car in for a wheelalignment and tire balancing? This is clearly the same kind of rimfound on a 757. (The hub-covers/grease-covers are not present forobvious reasons - to remove one you pop it off with a flathead screwdriver... so how would you expect it to stay on in a 400mph impact witha reinforced concrete wall?)

While we agree that the wheel rim from the Pentagon appearsto be the same as that of a Boeing 757, we need to look at the "wheelrim" evidence firstly in the context of a massive government conspiracyon 9/11, and secondly in context of the other - overwhelming - evidencethat points to something other than a 757 having hit thePentagon.

Taking these facts into consideration and the evidence for ageneral 9/11 government conspiracy, is it not plausible that theconspirators just might have "planted" evidence at some point in theoperation? After all, if CatHerder grants the possibility of agovernment conspiracy and cover-up, why does he/she draw the line atthe planting of evidence?

Keep in mind that there are very few available photos ofaircraft debris inside the Pentagon: a wheel rim and a landing gearstrut, and an engine combustion chamber. The wheel rim was in the non-renovatedWedge 2 by the AE drive hole. And despite the assertions of theauthor of the ATS post, without expert analysis, no one can say thatthe few recognizable airplane parts are unequivocally from a 757.

Landing gear strut - appears to be from the nose gear -note how charred the area around it is.

This landing gear strut is inadmissible as evidence given thefact that the CatHerder does not claim to be an expert on landing gearand cannot verify from which aircraft this landing gear comes. As such,it could be the landing gear strut from any number of aircraft.

The next photo is from the cover from one of the conspiracy sitesthat demands "where is the plane?"- theymust not have looked very hard, there are 2 obvious chunks of it in thephoto. Another rim from the airplane on the right,and a large chunk of bulkhead on the left.

Again the alleged "evidence" of debris from a Boeing 757 inthe above pictured debris is inconclusive. The fact that the ATS authorclaims categorically that there is "a large chunkof bulkhead on the left" is somewhat comical given his/heradmitted lack of expertise in positively identifying charred remains ofany aircraft let alone a Boeing 757. We should note that weare not saying that "no plane" hit the Pentagon, we are simply sayingthat the damage and debris is inconsistent with a Boeing 757.

Below: More parts from inside the 757 - note the Boeing greenprimer on 3 parts in this photo - two circled.

Again, for anyone, let alone an amateur like CatHerder, toclaim that they can positively identify debris from a Boeing 757 fromthese mangled pieces of material raises questions about the integrityand impartiality of said individual. Can "CatHerder" be sure that thesegreenish pieces of material are not from some part of the inside of thePentagon or from another type of aircraft? The very fact that all ofthese parts and bits of "evidence" were NOT trotted out by thegovernment and put on display for the public and experts to examine ismore indication that if they had been, someone would have recognizedthem as something else entirely.

No official explanation for the above hole in ring C has everbeen put forward, and the ATS author studiously ignores this fact. Theofficial Pentagon building performance report simply states that:

"Therewas a hole in the east wall of ring C, emerging into AE Drive, betweencolumn lines 5 and 7 in Wedge 2. The wall failure was approximately 310ft from where the fuselage of the aircraft entered the west wall of thebuilding..."

That's it. The fact that whatever came out through this holeis essentially the object that hit the Pentagon and did the major partof the damage is apparently not deemed important enough, either by theUS government or CatHerder, to deserve comment.

The fact is that the above image showing the round hole thatwas left in ring C is one of the most intriguing aspects of thePentagon attack. While we might assume that it is unofficially claimedthat one of the engines of Flight 77 made this hole (the engine beingthe only part of a 757 that could possibly be strong enough to passthrough three rings of the Pentagon, never mind that it left noevidence of its entry on the exterior of the building), as we haveseen, a disk that is verifiably part of the engine of the aircraft thathit the Pentagon was found at the front of the building, notin the third ring. This fact strongly suggests that the engine that thedisk came from was destroyed in the initial blast at the front ofthe building. It is highly unlikely therefore that an engine ofthe plane that hit the Pentagon punched out this hole. Whatever theobject was, it had enough force to breach the main reinforced steelconcrete outer wall and then travel some 250 feet, passing throughfive other double-brick walls on the way. Terry Mitchell, Chief ofthe Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs) wasone of the first on the scene at this â€œpunch outâ€ point. In a DODnews briefing about the reconstruction of the Pentagon he stated:

â€œThisis a hole in -- there was a punch-out. They suspect that this was wherea part of the aircraft came through this hole, although I didnâ€™tsee any evidence of the aircraft down there.â€

Indeed, it just must have been where part of theaircraft came out, yet there was no evidence of any part ofan aircraft that could have made the hole! Never mind that CatHerderhas just told us about all the evidence of the aircraft that is justlaying all around! Later in the same briefing when referring to thesame hole Mitchell must have realised his mistake and stated:

â€œThispile here is all Pentagon metal. None of that is aircraft whatsoever.As you can see, theyâ€™ve punched a hole in here. This was punched by therescue workers to clean it outâ€.

So which was it? Was the hole punched out by some part of theaircraft or by rescue workers? Was the pile of stuff aircraft debris,as CatHerder claims, or was it "all Pentagon metal" as Terry Mitchellsays? Look again at the picture of the hole. We donâ€™t need thecontradictory statements of Mr. Mitchell to conclude that, due to thefact that the debris is on the outside of the building, the hole waspunched out from the inside, yet how could it have been â€œpunched outâ€by rescue workers when there are scorch marks at the top of the hole onthe outside? Did the rescue workers punch out this hole when the firewas still raging inside? Hardly likely. Limiting air flow is part offighting a fire. You donâ€™t make holes to let in more air while you aretrying to extinguish a fire.

Dare we suggest that the OASD chief was lying that day? Thathe changed his story because the â€œofficialâ€ version of events did notinclude the idea that part of the aircraft made that hole, because itis inconceivable that any part of a 757 could have done so?If so, then a government official is on record as having lied about theevents at the Pentagon, yet such does not dissuade CatHerder fromtrying to convince the public that the official government story aboutthe strike on the Pentagon is correct.

Below, another photo of a tire with the samepattern as ones used on a 757, found in the Pentagon wreckage.

Again, for anyone to present a grainy picture of somethingthat vaguely resembles a tyre and then claim that this is a positiveID of the wheel of a Boeing 757 simply gives us further cause tobelieve that CatHerder either has an agenda about which he/she is notbeing honest, or is so invested in his/her need to prove the governmentstory correct that he/she has lost any hope of being objective abouthis/her analysis of the evidence.

Engine Evidence

Letâ€™s take a look at some of the ground debris that appears to berelated to an aircraft engine. Many different sites and posts havereported that the 757 uses Rolls-Royce engines [RB211-535E4B] - howeverit should be noted, for the sake of thoroughness(ibid), that American Airlines also use Pratt & Witney engines [PW2037] in many of their 757fleet. You can also view this information on their website. (The 757fleets around the world actually use over six different kinds ofengines.) The 757 that is reported to have hit the Pentagon was usingRB211-535E4B engines.

Here is are photos of some apparent engineparts from the Pentagon crash site.

What is seen in this photo is most likely the APU (Aux Power Unit) usedin a 757 that is equipped with Rolls-Royce RB211 engines. The APU(Honeywell GTCP331-200) is located in the tail section of the aircraft(that's what the large vent that looks like a 3rd jet engine is) as edvidenced (ibid) on this technical rescue reference aid from Boeing. Boeing 757 reference website. These small turbine engines are quite common onmodern turbine & turbofan passenger aircraft, and are used tofurnish ground auxillary power while themain engines are shut down during ground operations. Anonline training aid lets you Play around with the controls on a757/767 instrument pannel (ibid).

The reader will notice in the above something that CatHerderdoes repeatedly throughout his/her analysis. When presenting his/herargument he/she pads out the point being made with additionalinformation that is often irrelevant to the point being made,but which is included, it seems, to create the impression that thepoint being made is well-researched or "factual". For example, whatdoes a link to an online pilot training aid that lets you play aroundwith a 757 instrument panel have to do with identifying the disk in theabove picture?

There have been some people who claim that a Global Hawkwas what hit the Pentagon. Here is what John W. Brown, spokesman forRolls Royce (Indianapolis), had to say about the part in the photoabove 'It is not a part from any RollsRoyce engine that I'm familiar with, and certainlynot the AE 3007H made here in Indy.'(Of course it wouldn't be anything he's familiar with, it's a powerplant made by Honeywell.) The AE 3007engines are used in small commuter jets such as the Cessna Citation; theAE 3007H is also used in the military'sunmanned aircraft, the Global Hawk. The Global Hawk is manufacturedby Northrop Grumman's subsidiary RyanAeronautical, which it acquired from Teledyne, Inc. in July 1999. A detailed view of what the turbofan that powers theGlobal Hawk looks like - I'm sure you can see it's too smallto be anything in the pictures contained here or anywhere else in thePentagon crash evidence. Also visible in this photo, one of the757's blue passenger seats to the left of the turbine, and possibly a2nd seat above the other seat.

Again CatHerder reveals his/her possible agenda by selectivequoting (and without references) in the above paragraph. First of all,the comments by Rolls Royce spokesman John Brown are taken from an AmericanFree Press article written by Christopher Bollyn.

Bollyn undertook the task of trying to find out what exactlythe disk in the above photo was. He called Honeywellâ€™s Aerospacedivision in Phoenix, Ariz., where the GTCP331-200 APU used on the 757aircraft is made: â€œThereâ€™s no way thatâ€™s an APU wheelâ€, an expert atHoneywell told AFP. The expert, who cannot be named, added: â€œThatturbine discâ€”thereâ€™s no way in the world that came out of an APUâ€

The first point then is that an expert form Honeywellthat makes the APU for the 757 has stated categorically that the APUwheel in the photo is not from a 757.

As mentioned by CatHerder, Bollyn then contacted John W.Brown, spokesman for Rolls Royce (Indianapolis), asking if the disk wasfrom a Rolls Royce manufactured engine, perhaps the AE3007H used in theGlobal Hawk. Brownâ€™s response was:

â€œIt isnot a part from any Rolls Royce engine that Iâ€™m familiar with, andcertainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy.â€

Next Bollyn called Pratt & Whitney who manufacturesparts of the 757â€™s turbofan jet engines:

â€œIfthe aircraft that struck the Pentagon was a Boeing 757-200 owned byAmerican Airlines, then it would have to be a Rolls Royce engineâ€, MarkSullivan, spokesman for Pratt & Whitney, told AFP.

So we have another spokesman for Pratt and Whitney, who,along with Rolls Royce, manufacture parts of the 757s main engines (notthe APU), who has contradicted John Brown of Rolls Royce by saying thatthe part MUST be from a Rolls Royce engine, which includes thepossibility that it was the AE 3007H which is the engine in a GlobalHawk, yet it is NOT the GTCP331-200 which is the APU used on the Boeing757 as stated by the Honeywell expert.

Bollyn then contacted John W. Brown, spokesman for RollsRoyce once more, to inform him that the Pratt & Whitneyspokesperson had stated that it must be a piece of a Rolls Royceengine. At this point Brown balked and asked who at Pratt & Whitneyhad provided the information.

Asked again if the disc in the photo was a piece of a RollsRoyce RB211-535, or from the AE 3007 series, Brown said he could notanswer.

Bollyn then asked Brown if he was actually familiar with theparts of an AE 3007H, which is made at the Indiana plant: â€œNoâ€, Brownsaid. â€œI donâ€™t build the engines. I am a spokesman for the company. Ispeak for the company.â€

So the Rolls Royce spokesman that CatHerder quotes as an expert on theevidence that the disk in the photo cannot be from a Global Hawk hasstated that he is not familiar with the parts of the Global Hawk engineand is therefore not qualified to make any statement about the originsof the the wheel in the photo.

We are left then with the likelihood that the disk in thephoto IS from a Rolls Royce engine, but NOT from the APU of the 757 asstated by the Honeywell expert. Could it then be a part of one of themain engines of a 757? By all accounts it is far too small to be thedisk from one of the 757's main engines, given that they are between 6and 7 ft in diameter. The disk on the AE 3007H however is a little over3 ft in diameter, and despite what CatHerder says, the disk in thephoto is a very good match for that of a AE 3007H, the engine used on aGlobal Hawk but never on a Boeing 757.

Bollyn states:

RollsRoyce produces the RB211-535 (main) engines for American Airlines757-200 aircraft at a plant in Derby, England. Martin Johnson, head ofcommunications at Rolls Royce in Derby, said he had followed the storyclosely in American Free Press and had also been notified in advance byRolls Royce offices in Seattle and Indianapolis. However, rather thanaddress the question of the unidentified disc, Johnson launched averbal attack on this reporter for questioning the government versionof events at the Pentagon on 9-11. â€˜You are the only person in theworld who does not believe that a 757 hit the Pentagonâ€™, Johnson said.â€˜The idea that we can have a reasonable conversation is beyond yourwildest dreamsâ€™, Johnson said and hung up the phone.

While there can be no definitive statements made on thematter, the available evidence would seem to suggest that the enginedisk in the FEMA photos is probably too small to be part of a 757engine and, contrary to what CatHerder states, according to theHoneywell expert that makes the APU for the 757, it is definitely nota part of a 757â€™s APU. So what is it? It could very well be part of aGlobal Hawk AE3007H engine.

Back to our ATS author:

Below is a significant portion of a badly smashed RB211 engine inthe Pentagon wreckage - what appears to be the diffusorsection of the compressor, one of the pumps remains partially attached,some hoses and the familiar webbed wire wraps (to the right of the mainring) and some of the Boeing yellow primed support structure is lyingbeside it (left, with rivets - again: note the yellow primer, we'llcover that further down). Reference: Image of the engine used on the757 (it's the rightmost one, top row) Rolls-Royce

Yet again our non-expert author presents photographs ofmangled pieces of debris and asserts categorically that they are partsfrom a 757 engine.

In this case, we are provided with a link to a picture of a757 engine without its casing from which our author can apparentlyquite easily identify things like the "diffusorsection of the compressor" and "one of the pumps" and "some hoses andthe familiar webbed wire wraps".

Ah yes! Those familiar webbed wire wraps, known and loved inevery household across the country! The photo below is the referencethat our author has used to positively match the mangled and burntdebris above. Well? Can't you see it?! It's right there!! Clearlythe debris above is the very same 757 engine in the photobelow!

No? Well, obviously you just don't trust enough in the wordof the US government and its agent, CatHerder. If you did, you would beable to see the truth straight away. (End sarcasm.)

Another engine part, bottom right.

Again, for the author, in his/her non-expert opinion, todeclare that the circular piece of debris in the above photo is"another engine part" is either evidence of extreme subjectivity or adeliberate attempt to mislead the reader. We are beginning to think itis the latter.

Below: Evidence of the right engine impact on the side ofthe building is evident on the large pillar being sprayed with fireretardant. (click photo for huge version)

At this point, CatHerder's sweeping statements about damageto the Pentagon and what caused it are getting to be somewhat farcical.In this case, as in almost every statement made by the him/her so far,the claim is spurious to say the least.

Click on the link to view a larger version of the photo. Youwill see that the chunk of masonry that is missing is a the level ofthe second floor windows in the Pentagon. If, as CatHerder states, theengine of a 757 did this damage then the nose of the plane would haveimpacted several feet higher around the middle of the second floor. YetCatHerder sees no problem with making such a claim while at the sametime presenting photographs that show clearly that whatever hit thePentagon struck the facade at the level of the first floor!

Again, we realize that we have been dazzled with more photosand more unsubstantiated claims.

The hit lightpoles, anddamaged vehicles in the flightpath(click for larger images)

Indeed, damaged light poles, but was it a 757 that did thisdamage or another type of craft? We aren't saying that a plane did nothit the Pentagon. Hardly anyone IS saying that. The only thing at issueis what KIND of plane was it?

The debris field of small chunks of planewitnesses said debris "rained down for minutes after the crash". (clickfor larger images)

Again, (and we are sure you are getting tired of this by now)the debris in the upper photos is extremely small and most likely to bemasonry from the facade of the Pentagon rather than "small chunks ofplane" as CatHerder states. Note yet again that he (or she) is makingsweeping assertions without providing any evidence at all for any ofhis/her claims! Somehow, probably due to the abundance of photos andthe authoritative writing style that has very little content, manypeople actually accept this bit of what can only be called "yellowjournalism" as a serious debunking of the "No Boeing" idea!

As noted by Thierry Meyssan in his book Pentagate,even the American government has refused to recognise that the infamouspiece of debris in the lower photo on the left above is a part of theFlight 77, yet CatHerder sagely affirms that it is, without doubt, apiece of Flight 77. As for the "eyewitnesses" statements that debris"rained down for minutes after the crash", we do not doubt that it did,but that has little or no bearing on our investigation into whetherFlight 77 hit the Pentagon, or whether it was something else.

[Deleted part of CatHerder's analysis of the size of theinfamous "piece of plane" given that the point has already been madethat the US government officially disowns this as a part of Flight 77.]

Even the black boxes have been recovered, the reason givenfor not playing the flight voice recorder for the media was that itwouldn't serve any use other than to cause more emotional pain tofamily members (I agree with them frankly).

Later, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said that the dataon the cockpit voice data recorder was unrecoverable. No furtherexplanation was given for these contradictory statements.

If thecockpit voice data really was unrecoverable, it would be the first timein aviation history a solid-state data recorder (the type used onFlight 77) was unrecoverable after a crash.

From aScientific American feature article lauding the "BetterBlack Box" in their [WWW] September 2000 issue:

Nearly100,000 flight recorders have been installed in commercial aircraftover the past four decades. The prices of the latest models generallyrange from $10,000 to $20,000. Their survival rate has greatly improvedin recent years as the FAA has raised the certification requirements.Although older recorders using magnetic tape were susceptible to firedamage, no solid-state device has been destroyed in an accident todate.

So we see it was not the case that only the publicdid not get to hear what was on the data recorders, the families of thevictims have been left out in the cold too.

So much for wanting to prevent emotional pain!

Ofcourse, as Flight 77 was not the plane involved in the Pentagon Attack,its black boxes would presumably show that, and the government would bevery reluctant to allow the data to be examined, or allow the NTSB tocarry out the investigation of the crash that is required by law. [Flight 77 Black Boxes]

As an interesting aside on the black boxes, Allyn E.Kilsheimer is the CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, the companyresponsible for rebuilding the Pentagon under the Phoenix Project. Hewas the head structural engineer on the rebuilding project and thefirst structural engineer to arrive at the scene (at the request of theDOD by the way). He stated:

"Isaw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I pickedup parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in myhand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box."Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of planewreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I heldparts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts.Okay?"

Of course, the idea that we should give any credit to thewords of someone who was immediately called by the Pentagon to come and"assess the damage" and who went on to make millions from thereconstruction project is laughable. Kilsheimer was also the"government's man" at the Oklahoma Federal Building bombing and thefirst WTC bombing. Coincidence?

But it doesn't end there.

Kilsheimer claimed that he "found the black box" on the afternoon of9/11. The only problem with this statement is that it is an out and outlie, and verifiably so.

"CarltonBurkhammer was at work at Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Station 14when he heard about the World Trade Center crashes. Part of FairfaxCountyâ€™s elite urban search and rescue team, Burkhammer prepared tosuit up and head to New York City. One of the nationâ€™s most experiencedrescue teams, the squad had been deployed in disasters all over theworld: Oklahoma City, embassy bombings, the Turkey earthquake. [...]Early Friday morning, shortly before 4 a.m., Burkhammer and anotherfirefighter, Brian Moravitz, were combing through debris near theimpact site. Peering at the wreckage with their helmet lights, the twospotted an intact seat from the planeâ€™s cockpit with a chunk of thefloor still attached. Then they saw two odd-shaped dark boxes, about1.5 by 2 feet long."

Yet again we have a government agent openly and PROVABLYlying about the events surrounding the attack on the Pentagon, butthat again does not give CatHerder any pause for thought beforetrumpeting the official story as the truth.

Area of fence to the right of the impact areapartially flattened by the right engine of the plane. Note how acouple of the poles are bent right over, some are sheered off at thetop, yet the pole and fence portion on the left is untouched (obviouslythe right engine took out the fence to the right of those poles) andthe entire back side of the fence has been torn away. The generator washit by the right wing and engine before the 757 hit the building - thedamage is evidenced by other photosof the crash area.

Closeup of generator smashed in the frontand gouged on the top - hard to image a missile accomplishing both ofthese. But if the right engine of a 757 hit the front of the generator,part of the wing could gouge the top. At the very least, something verylarge, and very heavy smashed into thisextremely heavy desil generator.

Click the image on the left to view a large top-down image of theimpact area, including the large desil(sic) generator which is visibly damaged, and actually spun ~45 degreesfrom the impact! Most importantly it is spun ~45 degrees towardsthe building - if this was a missile or a bomb, the explosion couldONLY have spun it away from the building.

In the immediate aftermath of the Pentagon attack, theAssociated Press reported that a truck bomb had exploded at the Pentagon. Therewere other reports that a helicopter had exploded. It certainly seems likelythen that something exploded in the vicinity of the Pentagonbefore the main impact. As noted by CatHerder, there was a dieselgenerator stationed just to the right of the impact point in front ofthe Pentagon that was part of the Pentagon refurbishment project.Diesel generators usually have a large fuel tank located somewherenearby to power them. Photos taken moments after the impact show analready burning fire to the right of the main impact site that isemitting a dense cloud of black smoke.

This black smoke isconsistent with burning fuel (diesel), which continued to burn longafter the flames and smoke from the main impact had died down.

If Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon, we would expect there tobe a major and prolonged fire from the thousands of gallons of aircraftfuel that Flight 77 was carrying. But in the case that another smalleraircraft was used, the lack of burning aircraft fuel would be evident.It is our contention therefore that the conspirators detonated a bombnear the generator just before or at the moment of impact in order toaugment the aircraft explosion claim (complete with thousands ofgallons of fuel) and also to provide a literal smoke screen in anattempt to hide the fact that Flight 77 was not involved in the attack.

The Gate Camera

Some people don't seem to see perspective correctly. I've zoomed in,and compared the two frames over and over - here is what I see as theairplane. I will repeat, however, that this is terrible evidence due tothe horrible quality of the original images. I do believe, however,that the white smoke in the images is caused by one or more damagedengine from the impact with the multiple light poles on the way in (asseen in the above image).

I stuck in a 757 that was at relatively the same angle - except it'sbanking slightly to starboard instead of toport - hence the ONE wing is out of place. If it was banking slightlyto port it would fit perfectly... However, once again - this isentirely subjective and the image quality from the releasedsurveillance camera is not good enough to form a factual opinion.

The author's comment that "if it was banking slightly to portit (a 757) would fit perfectly" is really quite humorous. The fact isthat you could "stick in" a tank or a bus or a large two-storey houseand they would also "fit perfectly".

The facts are as follows:

There were at least four video cameras capable ofrecording the attack on the Pentagon. One was on the roof of theSheraton Hotel, a second was at a gas station across the road from thePentagon itself, the third belonged to the Virginia Department ofTransportation and was stationed on route 27, which the aircraft flewover. The fourth was the Pentagonâ€™s security camera stationed at theopposite one end of the faÃ§ade from where the plane struck.

The footage from the cameras at the Sheraton, the gas stationand on route 27 were confiscated by the FBI and have never beenreleased. The only footage made available to the public was thatrecorded by the Pentagonâ€™s security camera. According to the WashingtonTimes however, both the DOJ and the FBI denied responsibility forreleasing the footage from the Pentagon's security camera:

"ThePentagon has not released any video or any photos from security camerasfrom the terrorist attack of Sept. 11," said Pentagon spokeswomanCheryl Irwin. A spokeswoman at the Department of Justice, which reviewstaped and photographed evidence obtained by federal security cameras,said she could not comment on whether the photos are legitimate, addingthat the photos "were not disseminated by the FBI or the Department ofJustice."

Of course, a simple denial does not mean that someone withinthe DOJ or the DOD or the FBI did not release the footage tothe public - after all, we are dealing with a massive 9/11conspiracy and the footage is from the Pentagon's very ownsecurity camera. We can assume with a reasonable degree of certaintytherefore, that someone within one of the arms of the Americanmilitary/ political/ industrial complex released the footage and thendenied that they did so, and for a very specific reason.

The above photo is the first still from the only videofootage of the Pentagon attack that has been made available. It isalleged that it shows an approaching Boeing 757 in the upper right handcorner. Do you see a Boeing 757-200 in this picture?

If we think back to the images and video footage of Flight 11and Flight 175 hitting the WTC towers, we remember that we all saw bothlarge Boeing airplanes, as clear as day, even though they were flyingat over 500 mph and were over 1,000 feet up in the air when they struckthe WTC Towers. This provides us with an excellent guide on how suchcommercial aircraft appear at that distance. The side of the Pentagonis 971 feet long and the plane in the footage is no more than 750 feet(250 yards) from the camera that is stationed near the opposite end ofthe Pentagon. Remember the indelible images of those huge planes flyinginto the World Trade Center towers? Even at that distance, even withthe size of the WTC towers, the image and size of the aircraft that wasburned into our minds from having seen the tapes replayed endlessly, isawe-inspiring.

Now, look again at the above image from the Pentagon Securitycamera of the plane approaching the building. Ask yourself thequestion: where is the Boeing 757-200 in this image?

Next time you are at an airport, take five minutes and go andlook at some planes on the runway. Pick out a large passenger jet thatis approximately 750 feet away, preferably one in the process of takingoff or landing. Take a picture of it. Then look at this image from thePentagon Security camera again and ask yourself. Where isthat Boeing 757?!

The fact is that if a Boeing 757 really did hit the Pentagon,it would stick out like, wellâ€¦ like a Boeing 757 in this footage, butthe simple and obvious fact is that there is no Boeing 757 there. Infact, there is no plane of any description in the footage released bythe Pentagon.

Note that the time stamp displays a date and time ofSeptember 12th at 5.37:19 pm. The DOD has offered no reason for thisdiscrepancy, which is understandable since they claim to have noknowledge about who released the images. In the footage, theprogression of seconds jumps from 19, where it starts, to 21 and thenon to 22 and 23 where it ends, meaning that one second and anundetermined number of frames have been cut from the film. Noexplanation has ever been offered by any official sources as to whythis video footage has clearly been â€œdoctoredâ€, why one second andseveral frames have been removed â€“ frames that would likely show justwhat it was that struck the Pentagon. Of course, this is veryconvenient for exponents of the official story. The footage shows somethingflying into the Pentagon and exploding, and since we were allimmediately told that that "something" was a 757, the case is closed,right?

Not really.

Quite apart from the fact that the doctoring of the videostrongly suggests that someone released this footage in an attempt toprovide "evidence" to the public that a 757 hit the Pentagon, while atthe same time removing the incriminating frames and denying the publicthe right to actually see what it was, in the images above wesee a stream of white smoke that is entirely inconsistent with acommercial jet aircraft at ground level and much more in line with thetrail left by a missile launch. Please note however that I am notsaying that only a â€œmissileâ€ struck the Pentagon.

Note also the picture of actual impact and explosion.

Have you ever burned oil, or car gas or diesel? It burns witha dense black smoke, as does oil (see above picture of claimed truckbomb). The flame is predominantly red, which, I am told, is due to thelow burn temperature of oil-based fuel (see picture of flames fromplane explosions at WTC). While there are few bomb or explosive expertswilling to weigh in, there have been a few who claim to know about bombdetonations who affirm that this white flame is clear evidence ofexplosives detonating. In fact, several eyewitnesses to the attack madeit very clear that they knew that the explosion involved explosives, nota mere aircraft full of fuel.

Eyewitnessto the Pentagon attack and Pentagon worker Don Perkal, was on the scene within minutes:

â€œEven before stepping outside I could smell the cordite. Then I knewexplosives had been set off somewhere.â€

He also stated:

â€œHundredsof F.B.I., Secret Service and Defense Department plainclothesinvestigators were deployed in the parking lot, recording witnessstatements.â€

Another eyewitness, Gilah Goldsmith said:

â€œWesaw a huge black cloud of smokeâ€, adding that it smelled like cordite,or gun smoke.

AirForce Lt. Col. Marc Abshire, 40, a speechwriter for Air Force SecretaryJames Roche, was working on several speeches this morning when he feltthe blast of the explosion at the Pentagon. His office is on the Dring, near the eighth corridor, he said. â€œIt shot me back in my chair.There was a huge blast. I could feel the air shock wave ofitâ€, Abshire said. â€œI didnâ€™t know exactly what it was. It didnâ€™trumble. It was more of a direct smack.â€

Donald R. Bouchoux, 53, a retired Naval officer, a Great Fallsresident, a Vietnam veteran and former commanding officer of a Navyfighter squadron, was driving west from Tysons Corner to the Pentagonfor a 10am meeting. He wrote:

â€œAt9:40 a.m. I was driving down Washington Boulevard (Route 27) along theside of the Pentagon when the aircraft crossed about 200 yards (shouldbe more than 150 yards from the impact) in front of me and impacted theside of the building. There was an enormous fireball, followed abouttwo seconds later by debris raining down. The car moved about a foot tothe right when the shock wave hit.â€

John Bowman, a retired Marine lieutenant coloneland a contractor, was in his office in Corridor Two near the mainentrance to the south parking lot.

â€œEverythingwas calmâ€, Bowman said. â€œMost people knew it was a bomb.Everyone evacuated smartly. We have a good sprinkling of militarypeople who have been shot at.â€

â€œIheard two loud booms - one large, one smaller, and the shock wavethrew me against the wallâ€, she said.

Angerand guilt still sear Lieutenant Colonel Michael Beans who shakes hishead ruefully and asks himself why he survived: "Why you, not them? Whomade that decision?" (â€¦) Inside the Pentagon, the blast lifted Beansoff the floor as he crossed a huge open office toward his desk. "Youheard this huge concussion, then the room filled with this realbright light, just like everything was encompassed within this brightlight," said Beans. "As soon as I hit the floor, all the lightswent out, there was a small fire starting to burn."

So we see that several witnesses, both inside and outside thebuilding, described a shockwave that knocked them to theground. Several described it as a concussion. Such a shockwave cannotbe explained by the impact of an aircraft or the combustion of jetfuel, and indicates the detonation of an explosive. Explosivedetonations produce blast pressures thousands of times stronger thanhydrocarbon fireballs because explosives are oxidized by chemicalsintrinsic to them whereas hydrocarbons rely on oxygen in ambient airfor combustion. Consequently the chemical reaction proceeds at a muchhigher rate in an explosive.

Hydrocarbon fireballs can produce detonation waves if thefuel and air are mixed prior to ignition, but such detonation waves arecomparatively weak. The violence of most plane crashes precludes suchpre-mixing. In the Twin Tower jet collisions, the columns of thecurtain walls diced the fuel tanks in the wings, assuring fuel and airmixing about as optimally as could be imagined in a collision, and yetthere were no reports of detonation shockwaves from anysurvivors from the floors below the impact point.

Cordite is an explosive compound used in aircraft gunammunition. Several witnesses with the benefit of military experiencerecognized the smell of this compound. Cordite N consists of three mainexplosive compounds: nitroguanidine, nitrocellulose, and nitroglycerin.It is cool-burning, and produces little smoke and no flash, but, likeother explosives, produces a strong detonation wave.

Back to ATS forum post:

Lets look at the physics involved

Here CatHerder takes us off on a tangent that is whollyirrelevant to the task of analysing the likely physical impact of 80tons of metal and other solid matter on the Pentagon and therefore toanswering the question of whether or not Flight 77 hit the Pentagon,because, despite the above heading, the only physics that is employedby the people at Purdue University is that pertaining to the physics ofliquid, i.e. the fuel in the wings of the plane and its hypothesisedeffect on the Pentagon facade and interior. It therefore has little todo with the job of ironing out the problems of the claim that an 80 tonBoeing aircraft hit the Pentagon. We can only assume that it is anattempt to confuse the reader and detract from the main issue - thatthe totality of evidence at the Pentagon crash site is entirely inconsistentwith a Boeing 757 having hit the Pentagon that day.

Engineers, computer scientists and graphics technology experts atPurdue University have created the first publicly available simulationthat uses scientific principles to study in detail whattheoretically happened when the Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagonlast Sept. 11

Using simulation software called LS-Dyna, the smartfolks use the physically accurate simulation results as input toanimations and visualizations to produce a vivid reenactment of theimpact of the aircraft on the Pentagon building and provide the largerteam with the necessary data to construct these using 3D Studio Max,AutoCAD, and research tools.

Again the author is being less that transparent and omits tospecify that the referenced research looks at the impact of the liquidin the fuel tanks and its effect on the Pentagon. In fact itis a testimony to the fact that even those that hold to the officialversion of events have had to resort to the idea that, in their ownwords:

"abasic hypothesis, informally confirmed with engineers knowledgeable inthis subject, is that the bulk of the impact damage is due to the bodyof fuel in the wing and center tanks."

And why? Because the damage to the Pentagon, including the 8feet wide circular hole punched out in ring C is ENTIRELY inconsistentwith the impact of an 80 ton 757 jetliner.

The Purdue folks further state that:

"Thepurpose of this simulation is to understand the response of areinforced concrete column subjected to high-speed impact of the fuelin the aircraft tanks."

Again, this simulation does not show us "what happened in theattack on the Pentagon"; it shows us thehypothesised effect of the FUEL in the wings on the Pentagon and is anexample of the desperate attempts to find an explanation, ANYexplanation, for why the impact damage is NOT consistent with theimpact of a 757 when the government says it was a 757. In fact, thestudy above is contradictory if one wants to stick with the "13 ftcylinder" and "confetti-ized" wings theory. You can't have it bothways.

In layman's terms the crashdynamics worked like so: A large hollow tube, with a belly full ofluggage, a passenger bay with 60 people, and wings full of fuel smashedinto the side of an almost solid object while moving at a tremendousspeed (somewhere around 350-400mph). When the 225,000lb+ plane hit, itsmashed apart with such force from the crash that it became like onemassive column of liquid (no, the plane didn't melt or turn intoliquid, it just acted like one physically - mountainslidesact the same way, a million tons of rock acts like a large field ofliquid during a landslide even if no water is present). All the smallparts, luggage, people, seats, and all the tens of thousands of poundsof fuel acting like a massive river came crashing into the wall of thePentagon. This force burst through the outside wall and flowed throughthe inside to the next wall, and momentum carried this mass until itfinally ran out of inertia at the 3rd ring.

Please do read the information on the Perdue website yourself - I don'tdo it justice with my one paragraph of paraphrasing!

Indeed, not only does the author's paraphrasing and selectiveuse of data not tell the truth about the real nature and reason forthis "simulation", it attempts to distract and confuse the reader bysuggesting that an 80 ton solid aircraft was little more than a columnof liquid! Again, you can't have it both ways. If you are going toinclude the wings and fuel tanks, and twin 6 TON engines, then the holeis way too small for all of this together to have created it.

For anyone to try and compare the effects of an 80 tonaircraft crashing into a building at 400mph to the effects of alandslide of rocks and soil is far-fetched at best, yet it is testimonyto the extreme lengths that CatHerder must go to to try and prove thata 757 hit the Pentagon when there is simply no evidence to stand on.

If a 757 really did hit the Pentagon then there should be noneed for outlandish theories about columns of water. The evidenceSHOULD be all there, and it should be a breeze to present facts thatwould quickly dismiss any attempts to suggest otherwise.

But we see that this is not the case - in fact the exactopposite is true! CatHerder is finding it very difficult to provesomething that should be easily provable if the evidence was there forALL to see.

Please read again his/her claim that the plane:

"smashed apartwith such force from the crash that it became like one massive columnof liquid (no, the plane didn't melt or turn into liquid, it just actedlike one physically) [....] all the small parts, luggage, people,seats, and all the tens of thousands of pounds of fuel acting like amassive river came crashing into the wall of the Pentagon. This forceburst through the outside wall and flowed through the inside to thenext wall, and momentum carried this mass until it finally ran out ofinertia at the 3rd ring"

It is amazing to observe CatHerder suggesting that, on impact withthe Pentagon, all of the parts of a 757 broke into pieces - fleweverywhere as confetti - then somehow formed themselves into a 9 footwide 20 feet tall concentrated column of energy (or water-likesubstance) that broke through 5 walls of the Pentagon leaving a neat 8ft by 12 ft round hole in the final 6th wall. Understand also that itis to such outlandish lengths that anyone, not just CatHerder, must goto if they want to make a 757 "fit" as the object that struck thePentagon on September 11th 2001.

(Removed two aerial images of Pentagon before andafter impact due to a lack of any stated reason for inclusion. See ATSwebsite to view them.)

Eye Witness Testimony

Lets look at some eye witness testimony sticking only to peoplewho saw a plane hit the building, and not look at people who saw anairliner, but didn't see an airplane hit the building because theylooked away or were too far away (behind a hill, behind a building,etc) to see it actually hit the building.

"AydanKizildrgli,an English language student who is a native of Turkey, saw the jetlinerbank slightly then strike a western wall of the huge five-sidedbuilding that is the headquarters of the nation's military. 'There wasa big boom,' he said. 'Everybody was in shock. I turned around to thecar behind me and yelled "Did you see that?" Nobody could believe it.'"

Note that in the above, the statement that this eyewitnesssaw an "airliner" is made by the USA reporter who wrote the story, notby the eyewitness himself who only heard a "big boom".

"Frank Probst, an informationmanagement specialist for the Pentagon Renovation Program, left hisoffice trailer near the Pentagon's south parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept.11. Walking north beside Route 27, he suddenly saw a commercialairliner crest the hilltop Navy Annex. American Airlines Flight 77reached him so fast and flew so low that Probstdropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right engine."- "A Defiant Recovery." The RetiredOfficer Magazine, January 2002

Again, the comment that this eyewitness saw a "commercialairliner" is made by the reporter, not the eyewitness. In any case, aninformation management specialist working on the Pentagon RenovationProgram is hardly a credible witness.

"Omar Campo, a Salvadorean,was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flewover his head. 'It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airwaysplane,' Mr Campo said. 'I was cutting thegrass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. Thewhole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could neverimagine I would see anything like that here.'"- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts."The Guardian, 12Sep 2001

As I have said,I am not suggesting that no plane hit the Pentagon, I am suggestingthat no 757 hit the Pentagon. I believe a plane did hit the Pentagon,because there is evidence of aircraft debris, (however scant thatdebris might be) and that it was dressed up in American Airline colors,complete with fake windows, in which case, it is possible thateyewitnesses may have concluded it was a passenger plane. Of course, apassenger plane is also the description of an aircraft the size of atwelve or twenty seat private jet, or something about the size of sucha jet painted with AA colors.

"AfeworkHagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work butstuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flewover.'There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as theplane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. Itwas tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hitsome lampposts on the way in.'"- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian,12 Sep 2001

This testimony is consistent with an aircraft hitting thePentagon, but not necessarily a 757. The comment that a "huge screamingnoise" was heard is contradicted by other testimonies (below)

"Henry Ticknor, intern minister at the UnitarianUniversalist Church of Arlington, Virginia, was driving to church thatTuesday morning when American Airlines Flight 77 came in fast and lowover his car and struck the Pentagon. 'There was a puff of white smokeand then a huge billowing black cloud,' he said." -"Hell on Earth." UU World

This eyewitnessdid not explicitly say that he saw AA Flight 77. His actual testimonyis prefaced with the comment by the reporter that "American AirlinesFlight 77 came in fast and low over his car". What the eyewitnessactually saw was a "puff of white smoke", which is very interesting.One naturally wonders why the reporter did not quote the witnessentirely instead of putting words in his mouth that he may never havesaid.

"We were the only people, we think, who saw it live," DanCreed said. He and two colleagues from Oracle software werestopped in a car near the Naval Annex, next to the Pentagon, when theysaw the plane dive down and level off. "It was no more than 30 feet offthe ground, and it was screaming. It was just screaming. It was nothingmore than a guided missile at that point," Creed said. "I can still seethe plane. I can still see it right now. It's just the most frighteningthing in the world, going full speed, going full throttle, its wheelsup," - Ahwatukee Foothill News

If this testimony is truthful, then there is little doubtthat this eyewitness saw a plane, but was it a 757? Notice that henever says that it was a Boeing 757. More "selective quoting."

Gary Bauer former Presidential candidate, "I looked at thewoman sitting in the car next to me. She had this startled look on herface. We were all thinking the same thing. We looked out the front ofour windows to try to see the plane, and it wasn'tuntil a few seconds later that we realized the jet was coming up behindus on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon.The blast literally rocked all of our cars. It was an incrediblemoment." Massachusetts News

If this testimony is truthful, then there is little doubtthat this eyewitness saw a plane, but was it a 757? Having said that,we note that Gary Bauer was a presidential candidate in 2000 and is anavowed right-winger and Bush supporter, for what it's worth.

Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controllerand Pentagon tower chief - "I just looked up and I saw the big nose andthe wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hitthe building," Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief Sean Boger said. "It exploded. I fell to the groundand covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through thebuilding." dcmilitary.com November 16, 2001

CatHerder must be completely unaware of what constitutes acredible witness. Perhaps it escaped him/her that we are dealing with agovernment conspiracy to murder and the testimony of a Pentagonofficial can hardly be called impartial.

"The only way you could tell that an aircraft was inside was thatwe saw pieces of the nose gear. The devastation was horrific. It wasobvious that some of the victims we found had no time to react. Thedistance the firefighters had to travel down corridors to reach thefires was a problem. With only a good 25 minutes of air in their SCBAbottles, to save air they left off their face pieces as they walked andtook in a lot of smoke," Captain Definasaid. Captain Defina was the shiftcommander [of an aircraft rescue firefighters crew.] NFPA Journal November 1, 2001

Captain Defina may well have seen pieces of a nose gear, orsome aircraft part that looked like a nose gear, but to which aircraftdid these pieces belong? Having said that, it is somewhat surprisingthat the nose gear from any aircraft would be visible inside thePentagon if we are to believe that the nosegear took the full force ofthe initial impact. After all, the nose gear is one of the most fragileparts of a Boeing aircraft, being made out of carbon rather thanaluminium, and would undoubtedly be destroyed beyond recognition by thetime it reached the interior of the building. Of course, if the nosegear of the plane that struck the Pentagon was not the firstthing to impact, then it is possible that some nose gear debris mightbe found inside.

That's just a small smattering of people who havegone on record as seeing the plane, and the plane hit the Pentagon. Icould have included the dozens of people who saw the plane, but didn'tsee it hit (because it went behind a bridge, a hill, or some trees),but I choose only to post the ones that sounded the most valid andactually saw the plane hit the building. (I included the one firechief who states he saw some plane wreckageduring firefighting/rescue attempts.) There are most likely twentytimes more that either haven't been publicly recorded as seeing thecrash, or simply don't want the attention. You can't honeslty sit there and deny the witnesses, thephotographs, the facts, the science, and the reality that there was aterrorist attack on the Pentagon if you look at everything availableand not one single tidbit of information at a time.

If that's the best CatHerder can do in assembling testimony,it simply proves our point about the overly anxious and desperateefforts being made to prove something that, if it were true, would notrequire such efforts.

Notice the subtle suggestion that CatHerder's analysisincludes "everything available". Notice also that the two testimoniesfrom Pentagon employees are included in those that CatHerder believesto be the "most valid". Also, having presented us with some dubious andinconclusive eyewitness testimonies, we are told that we cannot denythat these testimonies are proof conclusive that a 757 really did hitthe Pentagon! What is true, as CatHerder states, is that there areindeed many more eyewitness testimonies that he/she could haveincluded. However, once you read some of them, you will understand whyhe/she did not include them.

For example:

Lon Rains, an editor of Space.com, was also an eyewitness to thePentagon attack. He commented:

â€œIn lighttraffic the drive up Interstate 395 from Springfield to downtownWashington takes no more than 20 minutes. But that morning, like manyothers, the traffic slowed to a crawl just in front of the Pentagon.With the Pentagon to the left of my van at about 10 oâ€™clock on the dialof a clock, I glanced at my watch to see if I was going to be late formy appointment. At that moment I heard a very loud, quick whooshingsound that began behind me and stopped suddenly in front of me and tomy left. In fractions of a second I heard the impact and an explosion.The next thing I saw was the fireball. I was convinced it was amissile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane.â€

Allen Clevelandof Woodbridge Virginia looked out from a Metro train going to NationalAirport, to see a jet heading down toward the Pentagon. "I thought,'There's no landing strip on that side of the subway tracks,' " Beforehe could process that thought, he saw "a huge mushroom cloud. The ladynext to me was in absolute hysterics."" . . a silver passenger jet, midsized"

Steve Patterson, 43, said he was watchingtelevision reports of the World Trade Center being hit when he saw asilver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment inPentagon City:

â€œThe plane wasabout 150 yards away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off theground, Patterson said. He said the plane, which sounded like thehigh-pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington cemetery solow that he thought it was going to land on I-395. It was flying sofast that he couldnâ€™t read any writing on the side. The plane, whichappeared to hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for thePentagon but was flying as if coming in for a landing on a nonexistentrunway"

â€œI was rightunderneath the planeâ€, said Kirk Milburn, a construction supervisor forAtlantis Co., who was on the Arlington National Cemetery exit ofInterstate 395 when he said he saw the plane heading for the Pentagon.â€œI heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying.â€

Kirk Milburn - who was driving his vehicle at the time - saidhe saw the plane heading for the Pentagon, and because he sawit he also said, â€œI heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flyingâ€.

What he said next, however, is not in keeping with a 757:

â€œI guess it washitting light polesâ€, said Milburn. â€œIt was like a whoosh whoosh, thenthere was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion.â€

Notice that the witness says, â€œI guess it was hitting thelight polesâ€. One suspects that he couldnâ€™t see it if he wasguessing. What is most interesting is that he said, â€œIt was like aWHOOOSH whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a secondexplosionâ€. No doubt he saw something, but since he was alsodriving at the time, it is not certain exactly what he saw.

Two early, primary witnesses have described a sound of aâ€œwhooshâ€! The second one, when he couldnâ€™t see it, said it was like aâ€œWHOOSH whooshâ€, just like the other man who couldnâ€™t see it, but thenhe has also told us that he saw a plane and heard a plane. But what hedescribed was most definitely not a 757 flying low over his head.

A 757, under no circumstances makes a sound of â€œwhooshâ€, andif the â€œwhooshâ€ sound was being made by the hitting of light poles, itis a certainty that if a 757 was doing it, you would not hear theâ€œwhooshâ€ of hitting light poles over the roar of the jet engines. Ifthereâ€™s a 757 right overhead thatâ€™s hitting light poles, and itâ€™s going460 mph, it would not be â€œwhooshingâ€! Anyone that has ever spent anytime at the end of an international airport runway knows that the soundof a large commercial jet flying low overhead would be more accuratelydescribed as a deafening ROAR!

It is true thateyewitness testimonies are notoriously unreliable. Take ten witnessesto an event and it is likely that you will get ten responses that willdiffer from each other in one aspect or another.

It is human nature for people to discuss their shared experiences,especially of extraordinary events such as witnessing a crime. Recentstudies of several high profile cases have shown that even a singleerroneous eyewitness can have a significant negative influence on theaccuracy of another eyewitnessâ€™s testimony if the witnesses come intocontact with one another and discuss the criminal event. Although it isnatural for people to discuss their experiences, it is highlyproblematic for the legal professionals, and our system of justice, ifevidence â€“ in the form of witness statements â€“ becomes contaminated.

Our previous research (funded by the Economic & Social ResearchCouncil) investigated how peoplesâ€™ memories can become influencedduring a discussion about a mutually experienced event under controlledlaboratory-based conditions. When people discuss an event what oneperson says is often adversely incorporated into the other personâ€™sreport. ...

Having saidthat, given the nature of the events that are alleged to have occurredat the Pentagon on 9/11 - a large commercial airliner crashing into alarge building, we might expect most people to concur at least on thebasic details. But, as we have seen, that is not the case with thePentagon attack.

I am of the opinion therefore that the very conflictingnature of the testimonies of the eyewitnesses to the Pentagonattack are important clues revealing the true nature of what happenedthat day. Imagine that a significant number of people are witness to alarge commercial airliner flying extremely low and at high speed overan urban area and crashing into a building. Imagine also that, not longthereafter, all eyewitnesses to the event are told by authorities andthe media that it was indeed a large commercial airliner that flew intothe building. Now ask yourself: in such a case, how likely is it thatthere would be any serious discrepancies between thetestimonies of those eyewitnesses? How likely is that any ofthe eyewitnesses would report that what they actually saw was a smallaircraft or something that sounded like a missile? Unlikely, I wouldsuggest.

Now imagine thata significant number of people are witness to a drone aircraft like theGlobal Hawk for example, which also flies very low and very fast overan urban area. While the wingspan of this drone craft is quite large,it is much smaller in overall size to a large commercial aircraft.Imagine also that this drone is painted with the colors and logo of awell-known airline that are only ever seen on large commercialaircraft. Imagine that there are even â€œwindowsâ€ painted on the side tomake the illusion all the more convincing. Imagine that, not long afterwitnessing the incident, all eyewitnesses to the event are told byauthorities and the media that what they saw was a large commercialairliner flying into the building. Now ask yourself: in such a case,what are the chances that there would be seriously conflicting reportsbetween eyewitness accounts of the incident? Very good, I wouldsuggest.

Eyewitnessaccounts are indeed useless when one must rely on them as the soleevidence. This is not, however, the case with the Pentagon attack.There is already much evidence - the facts on the ground - tosuggest that it was not a Boeing 757 that hit the Pentagon on9/11. The fact that there are serious conflicts in eyewitness accountsmerely serves to back up this other evidence that it was NOT a Boeing757 that hit the Pentagon.We might alsowonder why there are no conflicting WITNESS reports of what hit the WTCtowers? All eyewitnesses to the event in New York concurred that twolarge passenger plane hit the North and South towers. Of course, wewere all treated to ad nauseam repeats of the video footage of thatevent, leaving no one in any doubt about what happened. So why nottreat us all to the video evidence from the Pentagon?

There is one very obvious answer to this question: the videofootage, held by the US government, would disprove the official story.

The above videoand audio of EMV responding is completely inconsequential to theinvestigation at hand, and I can think of no reason why CatHerder wouldinclude it, other than to attempt in some subtle way to drive home theofficial claim that a 757 hit the Pentagon.

Conclusion

I highly doubt that local firefighters would be involved in anysort of a coverup. I highly doubtthat local police officers would be involved in any sort of agovernment cover up. Cops and firemen are just average Joes like youand me, who go home to the wife and kids, and just try to make a livingand have a good life for their families (I have many friends in bothprofessions - of course the firemen are usually more stablemarriage-wise because of their job but that doesn't make the cops anyless human than you or I). The men and women who pulled over a hundredpeople (dead and alive) out of that building would more likely than nothave noticed somebody carrying over 60 bodies into the middle of thefire they were fighting. To say that the plane that hit the Pentagonwas not filled with every single person who died in this terroristattack (not counting the unfortunate people inside the building) is onething and one thing only - ignorant.

Oh, LORD! Not the dreaded "malignant pseudo-identification"again! You know, the process bywhich a COINTELPRO agent consciously imitates or simulates certainbehaviors or beliefs in order to foster "identification" with him/her,thus increasing the vulnerability to exploitation. Yes indeed,CatHerder is just an "average Joe" like "you and me." And just to makeit hit home, the emotional hooks of "family," a "good life," "making aliving," and "stable marriages" are tossed in there followed by thefinal tear jerker, an outrageous reference to the people who died thatday. It is outrageous because it is finally clear that CatHerder is,indeed, an agent of disinformation and using such emotional ploys, asthis is truly malignant pseudo-identification.

Having said that, let's return to the fact that the point isnot that firefighters or police officers were involved in the cover upas CatHerder slickly suggests is the claim of anyone who says thatFlight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, but rather that any of them thatsaw something they were not meant to, could have been easily silenced.The most obvious way to silence the "average Joe" who is honest,hard-working and normally patriotic, is to impress on such a personthat they must not talk about something due to "national security". Ifthey were to persist in wanting to talk about what they saw, morepersuasive methods can be used like threats to their livelihood etc.,up to and including murder. But murder is seldom required. A simpleletter with details of family and friends and an order to "keep yourmouth shut" is more than enough for most people. As CatHerder says:"cops and firemen are just average Joes like you and me, who go home tothe wife and kids, and just try to make a living and have a good lifefor their families." They are not likely to risk their livelihood, orthe lives of their children for 5 minutes of fame on national TV. Theykeep their mouths shut. And that's a tragedy that CatHerder doesn'tseem to be able to understand.

As regards the"carrying of 60 bodies into the middle of the fire". This is simplymore evidence of CatHerder's attempts to confuse and manipulate thereader. I know of no site that suggests that the bodies of thepassengers on Flight 77 were carried into or out of the Pentagon afterthe attack. The identification of the bodies was carried out off siteby the state pathologist. We were never shown footage nor did we hearreports about anyone picking up pieces of passengers from Flight 77from the attack site, we were simply told that all passengers wereidentified from their DNA from body parts that were in the possessionof the state pathologist. It is simply assumed that the statepathologist got the bodies parts from the Pentagon site, because ofcourse, the government told us that Flight 77 crashed there - whereelse would the body parts come from!? But as I have shown, it isextremely unlikely that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, whichmakes the question of how the state pathologist got hold of body partsfrom the passengers a very interesting question.

Of course, we have not even touched on that most bizarreaspect of the Pentagon strike - the alleged final approach of Flight77. Think about this:

The hijackers are a few thousand feet up in the air, they spot thedistinctive shape of the Pentagon and decide, "that's our target". Whatdo they do next?

Well, logic would suggest that they take the easy and most effectiveoption and nose-dive the plane towards the center of the Pentagon,thereby maximising the chances of actually hitting the building at suchhigh speed and also causing the most damage.

But no, ourintrepid "Arab terrorists" have a much more complicated plan:

They are going to fly the airliner at maximum speed just a few feet offthe ground into the facade of the Pentagon; but not just any part ofthe facade. No indeed, these guys have a plan. Their specificallychosen "bull's eye" is the section of the facade of the Pentagon thathad recently been reinforced and, due to the ongoing internal work, hada significantly reduced number of people in it. These nutty hijackers,consumed with rage and anger at America, its government, its militaryand its citizens, and determined to inflict as much carnage aspossible, had somehow chosen the strongest part of the Pentagon whichat the same time had the lowest concentration of people!

This done, they are now at a few hundred feet and in "line of sight" ofthe Pentagon up ahead of them. The only problem is that they are nowconfronted with a veritable obstacle course of cars, roads, bridges,buildings, trees etc between them and their target. Not to worry - theyhave Allah on their side after all. By some miracle they manage tonavigate the massive hulk of the 757 through down town Washington whileflying at 500 mph and just a few dozen feet off the ground, gettinglower all the time. They make just a little booboo and clip a couple oflight poles on the way in, but despite this and the fact that theirmassive manual missile is just feet of the ground, they politely avoidmessing up the Pentagon lawn and finally slam into their target atground floor level.

Now that is one fantastical magical mystery of a story,worthy of inclusion in any children's fairy tale.

Review the facts

Â·Size of 757 matches the initial size of hole in the building -somewhere between 13 and 16 feet (757 is 13 feet wide/high)

Initial hole only fits the size of a 757 if you subtract thewings, twin 6 TON engines, and tail fin which somehow did not hit thebuilding. Even then the fuselage would have had to slip into thebuilding leaving a round hole that exactly conformed to the diameterand height of the cylindrical tube. In short, highly unlikely, not tomention the fact that the two 50 feet long wings with twin 6 TON steelengines somehow disappeared and could not be found in the wreckageoutside the building.

Â·Rims found in building match those of a 757

Rims - IF they were 757 rims - were quite possibly planted orwere the rims from another type of aircraft.

Â·Small turbine engine outside is an APU

Indeed, it may well be an APU. But as noted previously, aBoeing spokesman has confirmed that the APU was NOT the APU from a 757.

Â·Same engine has been clearly stated to not match a Global Hawkengine

This is simply not true. No one has come forward to confirmor deny that the disk seen in photos from outside the Pentagon couldhave come from a Global Hawk. Given the small size of the disk, it islikely that it did not come from a large 757 engine but rather asmaller-engined aircraft. Like a Global Hawk.

Â·Blue seats from 757 laying on ground in photos

The mangled bluedebris could be anything and is inadmissible as conclusive "evidence"of any part of any aircraft.

Â·Part of "American" fuselage logo visible in more than 1 photo

The only piece of debris showing part of lettering that appearssimilar to lettering on American airlines craft is pristine, nosmoke or explosion damage and has not been accepted by US government ascoming from Flight 77. It seems that CatHerder is not only pushing thegovernment line but is going so far as to accept evidence that even theUS government wont touch due to its obviously suspect nature.

Â·Engine parts photographed inside match a Rolls-Royce RB211

Our author is a self-proclaimed non-expert in such mattersyet sees fit to pronounce conclusively that mangled pieces of aircraftmaterial are definitely parts of a specific aircraft engine. This aloneshould make any reader of this fine piece of disinformation wary.

Â·Largedeisel (sic) generator infront of building hit by a large heavy object

Diesel generator was probably moved by initial explosion asreported in early news releases.

Â·Largedeisel (sic) engine outsideis spun towards the building - could not be result of bombblast or missile explosion

Nonsense. See previous comment.

Â·Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner

Multiple eyewitnesses say they saw a private jet sizedaircraft, others said it sounded like a missile.

Â·Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner hit the Pentagon

Multiple eyewitnesses who announced that they saw an American airliners passengerjet were also government and mainstream media employees and theirtestimonies are therefore unacceptable.

Â·60+ bodies, matching the passenger list and flight crew rosteridentified and returned to families from Pentagon wreckage

60+ bodies werenot identified. DNA from all of the passengers was identified, which isactually an interesting point. How can it be that the impact and firewere allegedly so intense that they shredded into tiny pieces anddisintegrated much of the plane, although not all of it, yet body partsfrom all passengers were recovered and identified?

Conclusion:

It is unlikely that Flight 77 struck the Pentagon because theavailable evidence is not consistent with the impact of a 757 airliner.

As I have already stated, the best approach for any 9/11researcher with honest intentions would be to wipe from their minds theofficial version of events and take the attitude of someone who hasjust returned from a 5 year trip to the outer reaches of the solarsystem, during which time they had no communication with planet earth.If such a person were given all of the publicly available evidence andfurnished with knowledge of the effects of airplane crashes and that ofmissile impacts, it is highly improbable that such a person wouldconclude that a 757 caused the damage at the Pentagon.

Why?

Because the evidence suggests otherwise.

Again I will state that it is only because of the claim bythe government and the media that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon that anyonewould ever try and suggest that a 757 did the damage. The evidence thatFlight 77 did not hit the Pentagon is so abundant that we continue tobe amazed that apparently intelligent people are nevertheless verycapable of ignoring facts and concocting elaborate (and often absurd)theories to avoid having to accept that which is right under their noses.

In the monthsthat followed the 9/11 attacks, it was web sites like Signsof the Times that took on the job of debunking the clearly falseofficial story about 9/11, in particular the attack on the Pentagon.While we certainly expected a response to our efforts from mainstreamnewspapers and other government shills, it came as somewhat of a shockand disappointment to realise that other alleged 9/11 researchersjoined the attack and attempted to debunk our debunking of the officialstory. The result is that many honest 9/11 researchers are having toengage in the type of "third level" debunking that I have presentedabove - a debunking of a debunking of a debunking as it were.

Of course, overthe course of the past 4 years, we have become much more familiar withthe disinformation tactics of government CoIntelPro. In modern dayIraq, it is generally understood that one of the main roles of US andIsraeli intelligence agencies is to foment ethnic strife among theIraqi people. The logic behind this is that if the Iraqis are fightingthemselves, they have less time and energy to fight American soldiers.It should come as no surprise then that the same tactics have been usedby US intelligence agencies to deal with honest 9/11 research. But thetask of getting honest people who share a common goal to fight witheach other is not easy. It requires infiltration over a long periods oftime coupled with subtle manipulation of the parties involved.Thankfully for the intelligence agencies, there is another much easierway: you simply have one of your own operatives pose as a SunniInsurgent or an honest 9/11 researcher and have him attack his fellowinsurgents/researchers. Hey presto! You've just created "division" and"infighting" which distracts and confuses the enemy. In the case of9/11 the "enemy" are the honest 9/11 researchers and the members of thepublic who look to them for information.

The question then is: are we dealing with such amanufactured group in the Above Top Secret website and forum?

It's hard to tell. There are without doubt many sincere U.S.and other citizens and web site owners who promote the official storyabout 9/11 because they believe (or perhaps need to believe) that thegovernment is telling the truth. Equally certain is the fact that thereare many US citizens and website owners who know for sure that thegovernment story is false, yet have been consciously recruited to pushthis story on the public. Members of the latter group are simply doingtheir job, but their influence is most directly felt among members ofthe former group who want to believe the official story.

Having said that, after reading through the long ATS threadthat followed the posting of "CatHerders" article, I have come to thetentative conclusion that the ATS website is just one moregovernment-funded damage control operation, albeit a very subtle one. Iwill explain why I came to this conclusion.

CatHerders article was received with much fanfare on the ATSforum, and much debate and analysis ensued with the thread finallyreaching 125 pages. As the discussion and debate raged, it becameapparent that many were convinced by CatHerder's article, but just asmany were not. On the 8th page of the thread, two of the three owners ofthe ATS website weighed in and attempted to silence the naysayers withsome large fonts and guilt trips. For example, "SkepticOverlord", "oneof the three ATS amigos and co-owner of Abovetopsecret.com" wrote:

"It's very disappointing to see ignorance embraced like this[referring to those who were not embracing Catherders article as "thetruth"]

Why? Because the real information is not wrapped up in an excitingFlash animation with angry metal grind? [referring, undoubtedly, to ourPentagonstrike Flash]

I still remember speaking to my brother (who was on the highway at thetime) calling me that evening, haunted by the memory of a brief glimpseof faces in the windows of the 757. Especially when he discovered hisfriend was on the flight later that day.

This is a sad moment for ATS. I feel like I now see faces."

Very moving. Very manipulative, too. "Springer", anotherCo-owner, then added the following:

PITIFUL... "CH" (Catherder) has proven his/her POINT beyondmuch of anything that even comes close to logic... But ALAS, as S.O.(other ATS co-owner) Points out, it is NOT wrapped up in a pretty flashanimation filled with BUNK so it must NOT be beleived... [anotherobvious reference to the Pentagon Flash.]

Sad Day for ATS indeed..."

Yes indeed, there's nothing like subjecting your subscribersto a little guilt trip to get them in line.

What is clear from reading the thread is that the owners ofthe ATS site and the author of the article in question are of theopinion that Arab terrorists, as they are presented by the USgovernment, are real and that a group of them hijacked four planes andattacked the US on 9/11. The only "9/11 conspiracy" that these peoplehold to then is that the US government may have let 9/11happen, and the fact is that there are many self-described 9/11investigators who promote the same idea. You could call it "9/11conspiracy lite", designed for those who lack the stomach for theunsavory reality of what 9/11 actually meant and where it is taking us.

The problem with such an explanation is that it subtlysuggests that, in 9/11, what we are dealing with is nothing more thancorrupt government or a few corrupt men, and we all know governmentsare often a little corrupt, right? The obvious solution, of course, isto simply remove the corrupt government or the few men and we can thenget on with the job of fighting those damn "terrorists".

What is missing, however, is the awareness that the"terrorist threat" that came front and center after 9/11 is crucial tothe entire conspiracy. It is Bush's "war on terror" that plagues theworld to this day, long after 9/11 has lost its edge and drifted to theback of the collective consciousness. It is the threat from "Islamicterrorists" that has led the US military to massacre 100,000 Iraqicivilians over the past two years, and you can be sure they are onlygetting started. Proponents of such a theory expect us to believe thatthe fact that terrorist hijackers gifted the Neocons with thejustification to accomplish their long-held goals is just a matter ofgood luck!

Anyone thatresearches the 9/11 event and, most importantly, the background toAmerican and Israeli plans for the Middle East and Israeli governmentpenetration of the American political system, cannot but come to theconclusion that the 9/11 attacks, in their entirety, musthave been stage-managed by those who stood to benefit most from theattacks. The fact is, if your goal is to sell the lie that 'Arabterrorists' hijacked planes and flew them into buildings, you don'tneed to involve real Arab terrorists or real hijacked planes. Indeed,it would not even be advisable to do so given the logistics of gettingArab hijackers, or people masquerading as Arab hijackers, to give theirlives in service to your plot and avoid the distinct possibility thatdetails of the plot would be leaked. No, all you need to do is to makeit appear that way with some well placed evidence and thenclaim that it is so.

We notice that very few items of so-called "conspiracytheory" have rattled the "Bushes" quite like our PentagonStrike Flash did. The Pentagon Strike video came out on August 23rd2004. Probably nobody really noticed it at that point, but it hit achord of response in the hearts of millions of people around the world.They began to madly download and forward it to their friends andrelatives. Latest stats on how many people have viewed it to date are500 million!

Apparently iteven landed in the email box of the Editor of the Washington Post,which is why Carol Morello sent us an email asking for an interview. Orso she said. My suspicion was that the Post was instructed todo "damage control", albeit oh, so gently!

It was an interesting feeling to know that if they hadn'tseen the Pentagon Strike before, certainly George and Dick, Karl andthe gang were watching it after the Washington Post wrote anarticle about it.

October 19th 2004: George Bush visits New Port Richey - a previouslyunscheduled "whistle-stop" on his campaign trail. NPR is very small,not likely to be a major target of any presidential candidate, but itjust happens to be Laura Knight-Jadczyk's hometown. It was our initialreaction that Dubya's visit to Laura's little home town - certainly ofno importance on the campaign trail - was deliberately done to send amessage to her. Fact is, her daughter's ex-boyfriend wrote to tell herthat he had been among those selected to shake the hand of George W.himself! Now, how's that for a coincidence?

As to exactly what Carol Morello of the Washington Postwrote to Laura, here is the pertinent passage which is actually quiterevealing:

A couple ofeditors here saw the video/film, and I was asked to find out what Icould about it. As you can imagine, we continue to have an intenseinterest on the attack on the Pentagon and the people who wereaffected.

I've just begunreporting, so it would be premature to tell you what "perspective" mystory would have.

My initialimpressions are that the questions and theories expressed in the videogot a spurt of attention in early 2002, after the publication of a bestselling book in France, then the furor died down for a while, and nowthey have re-emerged with the extraordinarily wide dissemination ofthis video on the Internet.

The 911Commission report appears to have done little to dampen thecontroversy. I hoped to speak to you about how and why you posted it onyour web site, what kind of response you've received and what you thinkabout it. [â€¦]

Notice that she attributes the resurgence of interest in the"Pentagate" problem to the Pentagon Strike video. Can we say "damagecontrol"?

And if there is damage control, then that means there isdamage.

Up to this point in time, the only acknowledgement theadministration ever gave to such issues was to refer vaguely anddismissively to "conspiracy theories". Now, suddenly, it seems thatdealing with the "conspiracy theories" in a direct manner was seen tobe imperative. "9/11: Debunking the Myths" came out in PopularMechanics Magazine in March of 2005, just five months afterthe Washington Post article. That's pretty fast work.

Under the tutelage of Editor in Chief Jim "Oh look, a tank!"Meigs, Popular Mechanics assembled a team of researchers,including "professional fact checkers" (impressive eh?) to debunk the16 most common claims made by conspiracy theorists about 9/11.Unsurprisingly, the PM editors claim that, in the end:

"we were able todebunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy doseof common sense. We learned that a few theories are based on somethingas innocent as a reporting error on that chaotic day. Others are thebyproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion andanimosity into public debate."

In fact, a careful analysis of the article shows that atmost, just three of the sixteen claims could have been the result of"reporting error", forcing us to assume that, in the razor-like,emotionally unclouded cerebrum of Jim Meigs, at least 13 of theconspiracy claims about 9/11 are the result of "cynical imaginationsaiming to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate".

The sad fact is that, while Popular Mechanics claimsto be interested in understanding what really happened that day, theirrebuttal of sixteen of the most common claims by so-called "conspiracytheorists" about 9/11 isn't worth the $3.57 of server space that it hasso far cost them to publish it.

If there is one glaring hole in the arguments put forward by9/11 conspiracy "debunkers", it is the fact that such people have nevercome up with a reasonable argument to explain why, in the wake of 9/11,so many obviously intelligent citizens became gripped by theuncontrollable urge to continually waste their time recklessly andfecklessly "injecting suspicion and animosity into public debate" forno apparent reason. It really is a mystery. Maybe they're trying totake over the world or something.

On the other hand, it doesn't take a degree in psychology tounderstand the primary motivations of the conspiracy debunkers. Yousee, the very last thing that many Americans (and others) want tobelieve is that their government would attack its own people. For 9/11"debunkers", logic and intellect have no part to play in investigatingthe question of what really happened on 9/11. It's pure emotion all theway.

In the beginning, on the morning of September 11, 2001 wewere all united in our emotional reactions: shock, horror, grief - (andnot to forget: jubilation from a bunch of Israeli Mossad agents).As the emotion subsided, most went on with their lives, but a few stoodon, brows furrowed, scratching their heads. After considerable diggingand research, it became obvious that the official story did notsatisfactorily answer all of the questions, and the fact that officialswere refusing to answer those outstanding questions, gave rise,logically enough, to a "conspiracy theory".

Not long thereafter, the debunkers stepped in, not becausethey had the answers to the outstanding questions, but because they hadtheir emotional buttons severely poked by the fact that someone wassaying that their government was lying! Sadly, the editors at PM are nodifferent, and their little fear-inspired rebuttal of 9/11 conspiracytheories is of little actual use to anyone, least of all to those whoreally do want to know the truth of 9/11. Far from approaching thematter with an open mind (which is crucial in any attempt to find thetruth), it is clear that Popular Mechanics' "professionalfact checkers" began with the premise that the US government was notlying about the main events of 9/11, despite all of the evidence to thecontrary. From there, the objectivity and integrity of their researchwent sharply downhill as they busied themselves with hunting down thevery same sources that provided the official story to confirm that theofficial story was in fact correct. Apparently, in "debunkerland", itis completely reasonable to ask U.S. government representatives totestify that the U.S. government is squeaky clean and then present thatevidence as "fact". It is also kosher, we assume, to have a murdersuspect double as a credible court's witness in a murder trial.

For those of you who have looked unemotionally at the eventsof 9/11, it is not unusual to be left wondering how those members ofthe US government who were clearly complicit in the murder of 3,000 oftheir own citizens can remain so smug and seemingly self-assured. Tofind the answer we need look no further than the Jim Meigs' of thisworld. You see, it is people like Meigs who lack any love orappreciation for the truth and worship only their subjective view ofthe world that make it so easy for big government to commit big crime.

At present there are millions of Americans and others aroundthe world who, aided by the years of social conditioning and media mindprogramming, drew a very clear line around what they would and wouldnot believe about their government and country. Most of what was insidethe line was "feel good" stuff about "greatest democracy on earth" andother jingoistic nonsense, with perhaps a few admissions that"sometimes bad things happen" and "not everyone is a saint". Thismindset provided (and continues to provide) a perfect opportunity forunscrupulous US politicians to literally get away with the murder ofwhich most of the US public refuse to believe they were, and are,capable.

The result is that, for all intents and purposes, today thereare two Americas:

- The America of the average American citizen which is littlemore than a government-provided dream world.

- The real America of the corrupt politicians and the selectfew who run the country, and much of the rest of the world.

Luckily for the select few, this second, real America justhappens to lie outside of what many ordinary Americans are willing orable to believe is possible. Lest anyone think otherwise, the settingup of any accusation against government as being the domain of"conspiracy nuts" is not the result of pure coincidence. Conspiracytheories are as old as the first lie ever told and the subsequentattempts by the liar to avoid exposure.

Most people think that "conspiracy theories" are made up by"conspiracy theorists", but the term "conspiracy theory" is most oftenused by those people who have most to gain from the ridicule of theallegations that are directed at them. The tactic has been used to suchgreat effect over the years that certain high crimes committed bygovernment have become the touchstone by which all other "conspiracies"are measured.

Take the folks at Popular Mechanics. In dealing with9/11 they simply couldn't resist referencing that other most despicablecrime committed by a US government - but of course, to them it's justanother "theory":

"Don't get me wrong: Healthy skepticism is a goodthing. Nobody should take everything they hear--from the government,the media or anybody else--at face value. But in a culture shaped byOliver Stone movies and "X-Files" episodes, it is apparently gettingharder for simple, hard facts to hold their own against elaborate,shadowy theorizing."

Did you catch it? The reference to Oliver Stone can mean onlyone thing: Jim's "fact checkers" contacted the CIA, and they told himstraight up that some bullets really can do magic things.

So far, we have been generous to the people at PopularMechanics. We have assumed that they are simply well-intentionedbut misguided souls. However, it appears that there is a more sinister,and dare we say it, "conspiratorial" side to Popular Mechanics'"innocent" debunking of 9/11 conspiracy theories. You see, itturns out that one of the main contributors to the article is oneBenjamin Chertoff, a cousin of the new Dept. of Homeland Security ChiefMichael Chertoff.

American Free Press' Christopher Bollyn, who dug upthe information, also claims that Ben Chertoff's mother was a Mossad agent. While thereis, as of yet, no evidence of any working relationship between the two,it is certainly noteworthy that the cousin of the current HomelandSecurity Chief, (who, in his previous incarnation as head of theJustice Department's criminal division was instrumental in the releaseof obvious Israeli spies before and after 9/11), happens to be behind ahigh-profile attempt to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories.

So if you happen to stop by the sorry article in question,don't be fooled or intimidated by the word "science" in big boldletters on the Popular Mechanics page. In Europe, McDonald'sdrink cups have the words "I'm loving it" emblazoned across them invarious languages, regardless of what you put in them. Credit byassociation or juxtaposition is one of the oldest tricks in the book ofmass mind programming. Just because "they" say it, doesn't make it so.This simple, logical statement is a salient lesson for us all in theseheady days where disinformation masquerades as truth and even"innocent" fun-loving "boys with toys" have become obedient workers inthe lie factory.

"The editors of Scientific American followed inthe footsteps of Popular Mechanics in exploiting a trustedbrand in order to protect the perpetrators of the mass murder of9/11/01. The column by Michael Shermer in the June, 2005 issueof Scientific American, titled Fahrenheit 2777, is anattempt to deceive the magazine's readers into dismissing theoverwhelming evidence that 9/11 was an inside job without ever lookingat that evidence. More specifically, Shermer attempts to inoculatereaders against looking at the decidedly scientific refutation of theofficial storyâ€¦ [â€¦]

Shermer's column exhibits many of the same propagandatechniques as the ambitious feature article in the March issue of PopularMechanics by Benjamin Chertoff, for which Shermer professesadmiration:

'The single best debunking of this conspiratorialcodswallop is in the March issue of Popular Mechanics, whichprovides an exhaustive point-by-point analysis of the most prevalentclaims.'

Comparing the two attack pieces is instructive. Bothpieces mention a similar range of issues, with Shermer addingJewish conspiracy rumors and UFOlogists to the mix...

This last is undoubtedly a directreference to Signs of The Times, while avoiding giving a directlink to our website out of fear that the reader might be influenced.

Shermer uses an array of deceptive methods to persuade thereader that challenges to the official story of the 9/11 attack areworthy only of ridicule and should not be scrutinized. His primarytechnique is to use hoaxes and unscientific ideas to "bracket" thevalid ideas that he seeks to shield the reader from.

That Shermer went to such great lengths to thoroughlymisrepresent the painstaking, scientific, evidence-based work of manyresearchers is a testament to the success of the Pentagon Strike Video!It really stepped on a sore toe. And that tells us something important,the same thing Carol Morello of the Washington Post wrote:

"â€¦the questions and theories expressed in the video gota spurt of attention in early 2002, after the publication of a bestselling book in France, then the furor died down for a while, and nowthey have re-emerged with the extraordinarily wide dissemination ofthis video on the Internet."

We notice thatnever, in any of the two major "debunking" articles that followed faston the heels of the Pentagon Strike video, was the video ever evenmentioned by name, nor was ourwebsite mentioned. Other books, other researchers, other web siteswere mentioned, but the deliberate avoidance of Signsof The Times - the origin of the Pentagon Strike, was conspicuous.We notice the same trend in the Above Top Secret forum.

Again we point out: debunkers are sent in only when damagecontrol is needed. And damage control is only needed when it is thoughtthat there might be damage. That means that the Pentagon Strike isunderstood clearly, in the minds of the perpetrators, to be the weaklink in their chain of lies.

Debunkers are sent in not to give answers to the outstandingquestions, but to push the emotional buttons of the public, to reassurepeople who really want "a reason to believe" that their government isnot lying to them.

It should be clear by now that I am suggesting that there ismuch more to the 9/11 attacks than most people are aware and whatreally happened is very, very different from the official story.

Now we get to the interesting part.

If Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon what did, and how?

Two emails received by Signsof the Times about one year ago, (identities concealed to protectthe correspondents) are quite informative:

Email #1

Greetings, Ihave stayed out of this arena for a reason, but can no longer. I am aMaintenence Mechanic here in the assembly plant in [XXX] where we buildthese great aircraft. 747's-757's and 767's.

Lets do somemath for a minute, because those who believe a 757 hit the pentagon,must also believe in the tooth fairy.

The melting tempfor brake shoes on a 757 is about 3000 degs., the landing gear strutsare solid cast aluminum; the center shafts for the engines are solidtitanium. The flame temp for low grade kerosene, (jet fuel) is around800 degs.

If the 757 wasfull of fuel, thats 14 pounds of aircraft per one gallon of fuel. Itsimpossible to "completely incinerate" a 757 at that fuel-to-materialratio. It would be the first time in history it did, and would defy thelaws of physics, period.

No 757 hit thepentagon. Where's the engines, landing gears, APU's, stringers, fuelcell walls, wing join assemblies? These are impervious to fire,and, all have survived the worst fires ever seen on aircraft, and I'veseen them all.

Oh by the way,if the 757 was "completely incinerated" as the gov't would have thelemming masses believe, how did they come up with DNA from the ashesfor every passenger on board. DNA from ASHES!!!?? What a crock of shit.Once you do the math, you'll quickly know that no 757 hit thatbuilding, those who say one did, are liars, or have been told to beliars lest they end up like Vince Foster and a few hundred others likehim.

Email #2

[...] I amprobably one of the most qualified people that you will meet to judgesome of the info about the Pentagon attack. I have served in the U.S.Army for a number of years now, I have not only dealt with weapons ofevery type you can imagine, I have also had a great deal of experiencewith aircraft, not to mention my brother is an analyst for the militarywho deals with a great many things.

First of all Ican guarantee that no missile did this (damage to thePentagon), none of the patterns add up for such a thing to work, damageratio is wrong, flight path is wrong, style of impact is wrong. Alsothink of the item it was hitting, a hardened building made of concreteand steal, all reinforced. Also I can tell you no large aircraftdid this [...]

While most wouldsay this is absurd because a weapon like that would have completelyleveled the Pentagon and a good deal around it, I am however stillinclined to believe that this might possibly be what did it. This is mythinking on the matter: the new TLAMs are programmable to pickentry point and detonation point, the hardened warhead on themallows them to penetrate the hardest of buildings and they hit goingmuch faster than the old type 1s that are commonly seen in war footageand test footage.

I think thatsomehow one of our new type 2s found itself set on a guided path to thePentagon with a side impact and center detonation programming,but for some reason the warhead didn't go off. That would give it theenergy to do the damage and drive through the walls like it did, but bynever exploding, it would still leave most of the building perfectlyintact like what was seen at the pentagon. The only problem I can seewith this scenario is there would have been no fire had this happened,unless something inside the building started burning.

Now they couldhave just mounted a much weaker warhead on the thing for the solepurpose of starting the fire. If this is what happened though, thensomeone wanted it to happen like this, to mount a type 2 with a weakwarhead not to mention set it on a path with the parameters that wouldbe needed for this. For no one to use the "safety" and blow it up midflight, it would have to be pretty damn deliberate.

Also the type 2matches closer to the size proportions of the object that was capturedon video. I'm still only going on speculation here as are most of thepeople who know that they are being lied to.

To tell you thetruth, I don't even think that the fire was at the low burning temp of800 degrees, a fire that hot would have gone farther to bursting thewindows and distorting the structure of the building. The more I lookinto and use my knowledge of missiles, the more I'm starting to thinkthat maybe it was something we haven't seen before and to not take therisk of disclosing to the public that a test project went wrong or thatsomeone did this with something new of ours. They made up theentire pentagon part of 911, at the very least, and went through awhole lot of trouble doing it.

From theevidence presented, we can propose that, due to its suitability for thetask in hand, it was a global hawk-type craft complete with a payloadof one missile with a shaped charge hardened war head and secondary warhead that struck the Pentagon on September 11th 2001. The first shapedcharge war head opened the main hole in the Pentagon facade, the secondwar head detonated inside doing the rest of the damage and creating the'T bar' of the final inverted T shape in the facade. The global hawkwas swallowed by the hole and the war head explosion. The hardened warhead continued on through the other 5 walls coming to rest in Ring C,leaving that neat 8ft wide hole. The war head was then confiscated,much like the various tapes that were witness to the event.

For its part, Flight 77 landed, probably at a militaryairfield in Ohio around the same time that the Global Hawk and missilestruck the Pentagon. All passengers and crew on board Flight 77 weredead by that time, except for one, two or three people. The bodies were"disposed of", and some of the remains were used for identification bythe state pathologist.

Shocked? Outraged? You have every right to be, but not at us,or anyone else that points out the logical explanation of the problem.There exists overwhelming evidence to show that, as a general rule,corrupt people in positions of great power do not flinch at murderingtheir own citizens if it serves their purposes to do so. In some cases,they will murder their citizens - and others - because it gives thempleasure. Such people also, historically, are advocates andpractitioners of torture. If you disagree then you disagree withhistorical fact. Welcome to the real world.

As Laura Knight-Jadczyk notesin her book 9/11:The Ultimate Secret, the attack on thePentagon is the Achilles Heel of the entire 9/11 coverup, and for onevery good reason: while we all saw repeated footage of Flight 11 andFlight 175 crash into the WTC towers, and we all saw the wreckage ofFlight 93 and have hundreds of eyewitness testimonies that a commercialairliner did indeed crash in Pennsylvania, there is noreliable evidence that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on September 11th2001. No one has seen any footage that shows Flight 77hitting the Pentagon, and the tapes that actually exist that couldeasily and immediately prove what did hit that day, have beenconfiscated by the FBI and the U.S. government studiously refuses torelease them.

The US government claims thata Boeing 757 impacted the Pentagon on 9/11, many people dispute this,yet the same American government refuses to release video tapes thatwould put the matter to rest and show once and for all what hit thePentagon. Use your head and ask yourself, "why?"

There is one very obviousanswer.

I realise that this theory presents more questions thananswers. But since the complete answers to what really happened on 9/11(and much more) are contained in the book "9/11: The Ultimate Truth", it would be remiss ofme to present them here. Suffice to say that Truth ismuchstranger than fiction.